Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

BRIGHTON CORPORATION BILL

BLACKBURN CORPORATION BILL

CITY OF LONDON (VARIOUS POWERS) BILL

WARWICKSHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL BILL [Lords]

WEST HERTFORDSHIRE MAIN DRAINAGE BILL

BARRY CORPORATION BILL

Read the Third time and passed.

DONCASTER CORPORATION BILL [Lords]

MANCHESTER CORPORATION BILL

As amended, considered.

To be read the Third time.

GLOUCESTERSHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL BILL [Lords]

LINDSEY COUNTY COUNCIL BILL [Lords]

LIVERPOOL CORPORATION BILL [Lords]

NATIONAL TRUST BILL [Lords]

PEMBROKESHIRE WATER BOARD BILL [Lords]

STAFFORDSHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL BILL [Lords]

WEST SUSSEX COUNTY COUNCIL BILL [Lords]

Read a Second time and committed.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRANSPORT

Railways (Rolling Stock)

Mr. J. H. Osborn: asked the Minister of Transport what is the British Railways programme for investment in new rolling stock, and passenger carriages, approved by him for the current year, expressed in number of units and by value.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport (Mr. Albert Murray): The Railways Board estimates that in 1970, within its approved programmes, it will spend £10·7 million on 427 new passenger carriages, and £5·2 million on 1,429 new wagons.

Mr. Osborn: Would the hon. Gentleman agree that the maintenance of new fast passenger schedules are dependent on high-quality rolling stock for passenger purposes? Is he aware that the London Midland—St. Pancras-Sheffield—region has the worst rolling stock and the worst timetables of any schedule in the country? Would he therefore agree that new air-conditioned stock should be put on this as on other lines?

Mr. Murray: This is a matter for the management of the British Railways Board. I suppose that at one time or another every hon. Member makes these sort of complaints about the rolling stock in his constituency.

Railway Workshops

Mr. J. H. Osborn: asked the Minister of Transport what has been the turnover, profit, value of exports, and value of turnover to outside customers of products manufactured by British Railways workshops in the current year.

The Minister of Transport (Mr. Frederick Mulley): Since 1st January this year British Railways' main workshops have been under the control of British Rail Engineering Ltd. The company is subject to the requirements of the Companies Act, 1967, and will disclose information about present activities in its report and accounts for 1970, in accordance with normal commercial practice.

Mr. Osborn: Would the right hon. Gentleman explain, first, why this year the Chairman of British Railways issued a Press release in advance of the annual report, which has not been published, about the performance of British Railways as a whole, and, secondly, why he did not refer specifically to the activities of British Rail Engineering Ltd., which is reputed to have taken on a container contract for Germany which is likely to cost the taxpayer £1 million and which is seriously affecting the private sector, which is in competition with British Railways' workshops in this matter?

Mr. Mulley: The answer to the first part of the hon. Gentleman's supplementary question is that it would be quite wrong if I were to follow him in that comment, because he is trying to steal a later Question which appears on the Order Paper in the name of one of his hon. Friends.
The answer to the second part—the hon. Gentleman's highly colourful version of the fact that British Railways have put in a tender for a contract and have got it—is that it does not follow that any other private firm would have got it. Nor does it follow that this contract will be carried out at a loss. British Railways will have to present their accounts, not only under the Companies Act but to this House, and I am sure that this is a proper commercial transaction.

Mr. Hooley: Would my right hon Friend agree that it is a wholly admirable and desirable policy that public corporations should have the same right to diversify their activities as private corporations have?

Mr. Mulley: I agree, and I also agree that they should not be asked to provide to this House, and elsewhere, information which we would not ask a private company to produce. I happened 10 days ago to be in the locomotive and carriage works at Derby and I was delighted to see that they were successful in obtaining a number of contracts in competition with private interests.

Mr. Michael Heseltine: Did the right hon. Gentleman inquire whether those competitive tenders were secured at a price which could be reasonably expected to return a profit? Has he examined reports in the Press that the container

contract is likely to result in a substantial loss of British Railways?

Mr. Mulley: I am naturally concerned that British Railways should not take contracts which are likely to make substantial losses, but I get my facts and figures from official sources and they are different from some of the highly prejudicial statements which sometimes appear in the Press.

London Bridge and Victoria Stations (Approaches)

Mr. Hunt: asked the Minister of Transport what reply he has sent to the application from British Railways to spend £20 million on new track and signalling at the approaches to London Bridge and Victoria Stations.

Mr. Murray: The Greater London Transport Group is examining a number of different schemes for improving the approaches to London Bridge and Victoria, but no firm proposals have yet been submitted to my right hon. Friend by the Railways Board.

Mr. Hunt: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that many of the delays on the Southern Region are due to the notorious bottleneck at Borough Market? Is he aware that, with no Underground facilities available, my constituents, and many others in the South-East, are entirely dependent on surface railway links to London? Will he take this into account when proposals are submitted to him?

Mr. Murray: As a regular commuter on that line I am well aware, and so is my Department, of the present difficulties. The working group is examining a number of different schemes at the moment.

Bickley Point Road Junction, Bromley

Mr. Hunt: asked the Minister of Transport what recent consultations have taken place between his Department and the local authorities concerned regarding the improvement of the Bickley Point road junction in Bromley.

Mr. Murray: None, Sir. Neither the London Borough of Bromley nor the Greater London Council, which are the relevant highway authorities, has yet


approached the Department about the improvement of this junction.

Mr. Hunt: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that everyone seems to agree that conditions at this junction have become intolerable both for motorists and pedestrians, yet no one seems able to produce an effective and practicable improvement scheme? Will he please take the initiative in this matter and try to persuade the G.L.C. to treat it as one of great urgency and also see that his Department gives all help and co-operation in formulating an effective scheme?

Mr. Murray: I have no doubt that the hon. Member could do just that by putting pressure on his political friends at County Hall to do something about this matter. We understand that the London Borough of Bromley and Greater London Council are discussing alternative schemes for this purpose.

M6–Fylde Coast Road Link

Mr. Blaker: asked the Minister of Transport whether he is now able to announce his decision on the feasibility study for the road link between the M6 and the Fylde Coast.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport (Mr. Bob Brown): My right hon. Friend hopes to announce his decision very soon.

Mr. Blaker: Does the Parliamentary Secretary recall that on 9th December he told the House that he hoped to announce a decision in the spring but he must await a decision on the boundaries of Leyland-Chorley New Town? Does he recall that the decision on the new town was taken over a month ago and nearly seven weeks ago he said that he accepted the need for an early decision? What is holding things up?

Mr. Brown: Spring has come a little late this year. Analysis of these very complex studies naturally takes a very long time and my right hon. Friend must be certain that he gets the right solution.

Buses (Reserved Lanes)

Mr. Sheldon: asked the Minister of Transport how many miles of road lanes reserved for buses are in use at present; and how many miles are planned.

Mr. Murray: No such mileage statistics are available, but we know of 21 bus lanes at present and plans for 10 more. We have asked local authorities to examine the feasibility of introducing more bus priority schemes following the recent report to my right hon. Friend of the Working Group on Bus Demonstration Projects.

Mr. Sheldon: Is my hon. Friend aware that this is a most valuable experiment which obviously needs to continue? Will he accept that we shall need to give an increased priority to public service transport, not only in the provision of bus lanes but also in the provision of subsidies?

Mr. Murray: We are aware of the help that this can give and we are encouraging local authorities to review bus routes with operators to see what bus priority schemes are possible.

Mr. Scott-Hopkins: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that for this scheme to work —and I accept that it is a good idea—there must be the width of road required, and secondly, some method of ensuring that private vehicles do not get into the bus lane, which does not happen at present?

Mr. Murray: These are all points which obviously will be examined.

Channel Tunnel

Mr. Sheldon: asked the Minister of Transport when the estimate was made of 8,000 accompanied vehicles as the average daily flow through the proposed Channel Tunnel in 1985.

Mr. Murray: 1966, Sir.

Mr. Sheldon: Since this was revised following the White Paper of 1963, will my hon. Friend undertake to lay before the House all the questions that arose following the revision of the 1963 White Paper so that we may join in discussion of this important matter?

Mr. Murray: No, Sir. We think it would be misleading to publish in full at this stage. We think the right thing now is to await the final studies.

Mr. Costain: Will the hon. Gentleman say when he expects the final studies to take place? Does he not appreciate the


inconvenience for my constituents of having no firm proposal for the Channel Tunnel?

Mr. Murray: As soon as we are ready for the final studies the announcement will be made. That is when this will come before the House.

Calder Valley Link Road

Mr. Arthur Davidson: asked the Minister of Transport if he will make a statement about the Government's policy with regard to the building of the Calder Valley Link Road.

Mr. Mulley: I have not yet completed my consideration of the report on trunk and principal road communications in North-East Lancashire. But I hope to be able to make an announcement very soon.

Mr. Davidson: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in North-East Lancashire we consider the building of a fast route linking North-East Lancashire with the proposed new town as absolutely essential if we are to benefit from the new town? Why can we not have this decision soon rather than late?

Mr. Mulley: We accept the importance of an improved link road between the Calder Valley and the M6 and I hope to make a decision very shortly, but the report covers a very wide amount of road building in this area and requires, I think, some study before deciding the priorities.

Mr. Waddington: Does the Minister recall that this road was first promised immediately before the by-election in Nelson and Colne in 1968? Does he not think he ought to get cracking before he is overtaken by another election?

Mr. Mulley: Judging by the result of that by-election, perhaps I ought to defer a decision until after the next election. Then maybe we would have a more satisfactory result for that election. The study was set up by Lancashire County Council with all the local authorities concerned. I think it not only right that I should study the report but that I should have time to settle the priorities. I accept the need for improved roads between the Calder Valley and the M6.

Ml1 (Roding Valley Route)

Mr. Biggs-Davison: asked the Minister of Transport what are his latest revised estimates for the building of the M11 along the preferred Roding Valley route; and how they compare with estimates for a route through the Lea Valley.

Mr. Mulley: The estimated cost of the published route down the Roding Valley is about £50 million. A continuation of this route to a point common with the Lea Valley route would bring the total cost to about £73 million compared with £84 million for the Lea Valley route.
A route in the Lea Valley would also require additional expenditure of about £25 million in providing separate terminal connections for the proposed M12 motorway.

Mr. Biggs-Davison: Nevertheless, was there not an over-estimate of the saving which would result or would be expected to result from preferring the Roding Valley route? Can the Minister say where he now stands in his dealings with local authorities and others making representations?

Mr. Mulley: As the hon. Gentleman knows, there were 2,000 objections to the proposals when they were made. A public inquiry has been held, I have the inspector's report and hope to announce a decision upon it. At the inquiry the merits of the two routes and all the figures were gone into. I hope to announce a decision as soon as possible.

Mr. Patrick Jenkin: Has the right hon. Gentleman's attention been drawn to information in the local Press that the Ministry has run into considerable difficulties which are likely to increase the cost of the Roding Valley route? Will he go into this further, because if the Lea Valley route is shown to be better than the Roding Valley route no one would be better pleased than my constituents?

Mr. Mulley: The hon. Member would not expect me to give an answer in respect of the report in answer to a supplementary question.

Transport Holding Company

Mr. Berry: asked the Minister of Transport what plans he now has for


the winding up of the Transport Holding Company; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Mulley: None, Sir.

Mr. Berry: Does the Minister agree that, since it was part of the 1968 Act that this company should come to an end and most of its important duties for passengers and freight have ended and it is now acting mainly as travel agents, it is time that these important people were freed from this responsibility instead of having to look after companies such as the Penarth Dock Company, whose profits have fallen from £48,000 to £3,000 in two years?

Mr. Mulley: I am delighted to be pressed by the hon. Member to carry out the provisions of the Transport Act, 1968, but he will recall that the Section dealing with the Transport Holding Company was permissive and it seems right to retain this arrangement for the supervision of Thomas Cook's, which is an important company in the travel world. as he has suggested.

Railway Closures

Mr. Berry: asked the Minister of Transport what is the average rate of railway mileage closures for the five years 1960 to 1964 and for the five years 1965 to 1969.

Mr. Murray: The totals for 1969 are not yet available. From 1960 to 1964 the annual average rate of total route mileage closure was 498; from 1965 to 1968 it was 886. For passenger route mileage alone the figures are 478 and 549 respectively.

Mr. Berry: Since the Minister, in his own words, always tells the whole story, does he agree that this is a vindication of the last Government's policy on the railways, and does he accept that the Prime Minister's words on this subject were as untrue as most of the other statements he has made?

Mr. Murray: The present policy envisages 11,000 route miles, of which 8,000 will carry passengers. In each case the figure is about 3,000 more than would have resulted from the Beeching proposals. The system of grants for unremunerative passenger services ensures that

socially necessary services are kept open. The Government are paying nearly £60 million a year to keep open socially necessary services.

Mr. McNamara: Is my hon. Friend aware that the Government's action under the Transport Act in subsidising socially desirable but financially unremunerative railway lines has been greatly welcomed, particularly by my constituents in Hull, as it has kept open a very valuable line for them to get to the seaside and helps to build up the economy of the area?

Sir A. V. Harvey: Does the Minister recall what his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity said a few years ago about keeping railways open for the commuters? She merely said this to get votes. She diddled the public and others, and always has done.

Mr. Murray: Under our policy we are keeping open some 3,000 more route miles than would have been kept under the policy of the previous Government.

Driving Licence Applications (Eyesight Test)

Mr. Peter Archer: asked the Minister of Transport whether he will now introduce an eyesight test for applicants for provisional driving licences.

Mr. Murray: No, Sir. We have no evidence which suggests that such a requirement would reduce road accidents.

Mr. Archer: Is my hon. Friend aware that recent researches by the Optical Information Council indicate that nearly 2 per cent. of drivers have less than half the vision required for the official number plate test, and that of those 300,000-odd about 12 per cent. are between 17 and 30? Does not that show that the official test is not applied very assiduously?

Mr. Murray: We are aware of the Optical Information Council's findings, but the unit did most of its work at the kerbside and it has not taken a random sample. The results of the eyesight test in the driving test are very different, but we welcome anything which encourages those with poor eyesight to do something about it.

Sir G. Nabarro: In the interests of road safety will the Minister study the


findings of registered driving instructors, all of whom have to be registered by 31st July next, for is not this body of men the proper instrument for obtaining reliable evidence as to eyesight effectiveness or otherwise?

Mr. Murray: No doubt we can look at this, but the law on the matter is quite clear. It is an offence for anyone to drive if he cannot at the time meet the appropriate standard.

Roads (Anti-skid Spray)

Mr. Gwilym Roberts: asked the Minister of Transport what study he has made of a new anti-skid spray based on chemically reacting resin with bauxite chippings which have cut accidents by 87 per cent. at test uncontrolled crossings in London, details of which have been supplied to him by the hon. Member for Bedfordshire, South; if he will take steps to extend the use of this spray to all British roads; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Cronin: asked the Minister of Transport what consideration he has given to the results of the Greater London Council and Metropolitan Police experiment of treating selected junctions and pedestrian road crossings with epoxy resin and calcined bauxite chippings, having regard to the 72 per cent. reduction of wet weather accident rate in the former and 87 per cent. reduction in the latter; and if he will take steps to induce other authorities to use this method at selected sites.

Mr. Bob Brown: We have noted the encouraging results achieved in London with this material, and will consider what guidance should he given to local and highway authorities when the results of this and other similar experiments have been fully evaluated.

Mr. Cronin: Would my hon. Friend consider extending the scope of the experiments? The figures suggest that this is a revolutionary step forward in anti-skid devices on the road.

Mr. Brown: This is something that we are always thinking about, and the experiments are being considerably extended.

Cars (Insurance)

Mr. Gwilym Roberts: asked the Minister of Transport if he will now introduce legislation to make it compulsory for cars to be insured automatically at the same time and in the same office as they are taxed.

Mr. Murray: No, Sir. There would be no advantage, and several practical disadvantages, in my hon. Friend's suggestion.

Mr. Roberts: Does not my hon. Friend accept that it is time to move in that direction? Both taxation and third-party insurance are compulsory, and there seems no logical reason why they should not be carried out in the same office. It would reduce the uncertainties of the present insurance situation, reduce the number of staff involved, and make the whole thing much simpler. Does not my hon. Friend accept that it would be welcomed by motorists generally, and by the insurance companies, judging by the small profit margin that they claim exists on motor insurance?

Mr. Murray: I am not certain about all that. The first practical difficulty is that vehicle excise duty is standard according to the class of vehicle, while insurance premiums vary considerably with the driver concerned.

Railways (Seriously Disabled Persons)

Mr. Marten: asked the Minister of Transport if he will give a general direction to British Railways that seat reservations for the seriously disabled will be effected without charge.

Mr. Murray: No, Sir. This is not an appropriate matter for a general direction.

Mr. Marten: Whilst I recognise the Minister's limitations here, will he nevertheless specifically invite the Railways Board just to show a little touch of generosity over the matter, as it used to do?

Mr. Murray: There are certain limited concessions that the railways allow, such as the booking of reserved seats in trains which do not normally have reserved seats.

Sir A. V. Harvey: Crossman.

Mr. Murray: I will pass on the observations of the hon. Member for Banbury (Mr. Marten) to the Railways Board.

Mr. Ashley: Is my hon. Friend aware that the indifference of British Rail has created considerable distress and resentment among many severely disabled people, because they are sometimes shunted into the guard's van if they cannot afford reservations? Will my hon. Friend make the strongest possible representations on this issue?

Mr. Murray: Yes, Sir.

Horticultural Produce (Vehicle Loading Regulations)

Mr. Hastings: asked the Minister of Transport whether he is satisfied with the loading regulations for haulage vehicles carrying horticultural produce; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Murray: Yes, Sir. Vehicles carrying horticultural produce are subject to the same loading regulations as other goods vehicles, and we see no reason to change this.

Mr. Hastings: The Minister plainly says that he is satisfied. Will he accept that no one connected with the haulage of vegetables could possibly agree with him, and that the regulations are resulting in a serious waste of time, labour and money? In the light of experience in this branch of haulage, will he please reexamine the regulations or at least consider doing so?

Mr. Murray: No evidence has been presented to us that the regulations are causing difficulties. [Interruption.] I cannot say any more than that. I am certain that if the hon. Gentleman can produce some evidence he will send it to us.

Mr. Michael Heseltine: Is the Minister seriously suggesting that he should be presented with vehicles full of rotten vegetables to support the many representations made by the trade associations on the matter?

Mr. Murray: This is evidence of the Opposition's rotten attitude on the Transport Act. If vehicle operators are finding difficulty with the plating regulations, it may well be that the vehicles were

overloaded before the introduction of the Act.

Mr. Hastings: On a point of order. In view of the extremely unsatisfactory nature of the Minister's answer, I shall seek to raise the matter on the Adjournment.

Vehicles (Road Safety)

Sir G. Nabarro: asked the Minister of Transport having regard to the evidence obtained by the Automobile Association, a copy of which has been sent to him, that 60 per cent. of vehicles are faulty, what steps he is taking to improve vehicle inspection, road safety and safety of pedestrians.

Mr. Bob Brown: Allowing for the nature of the sample on which the A.A.'s findings are based, they are not inconsistent in detail with the failure rate in the Ministry's test. We will continue the annual tests and roadside checks of vehicles as in the past and the police will no doubt enforce the regulations as before. Strict measures introduced in 1968 to enforce the standards of the vehicle testing scheme are still being maintained.

Sir G. Nabarro: Would not the hon. Gentleman agree that that is an appalling confession, which amounts to a statement that 60 per cent. of the vehicles right across the board on the roads of this country are not in a roadworthy condition, and suffer from one fault or another? What is he doing specifically in the early future to raise standards of roadworthiness and to meet general levels of road safety?

Mr. Brown: The hon. Gentleman must not put words into my mouth. I did not say that there was a failure rate of 60 per cent. On the sample that the A.A. made there was a failure rate across the board of 60 per cent. but with the Ministry tests it is about 31 per cent. I agree that this is high, but proper maintenance of vehicles is the responsibility of the owners. Without the vehicle testing scheme those 31 per cent. of vehicles would still be running around and constituting a danger to the public.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: Is it not the case that there are about 2,000 rules and regulations and statutory orders affecting


vehicles, that invariably none of them are carried out and that very rarely are there any spot checks made at the roadside? Is my hon. Friend aware that there are hundreds of thousands of vehicles on the roads today that have never been stopped at any time by one of these so called spot checks? Will not he carry out the existing laws?

Mr. Brown: I am not prepared to confirm or deny that there are 2,000, 1,999 or 2,001 rules and regulations. I am prepared to take issue with my hon. Friend about spot checks seldom being carried out. I spent three hours at the roadside with a team doing spot checks yesterday afternoon in the South of Scotland. I can tell my hon. Friend that every week in the northern and southern parts of Scotland at least one roadside check is made. The same applies to England and Wales.

Crewe-Glasgow Railway Line (Electrification)

Sir G. Nabarro: asked the Minister of Transport what estimate he has obtained of loading per track mile for Crewe to Glasgow electrification to be carried out at a cost of £25 million and average loading per track mile established Euston to Crewe, 158 miles, compared with the 263 miles Crewe to Glasgow; and what is the economic return on the latter.

Mr. Mulley: As I explained to the hon. Member for South Angus (Mr. Bruce-Gardyne) on 24th March, the publication of detailed information about this investment project would not be in the commercial interest of British Railways.—[Vol. 798, c. 1186–7.]

Sir G. Nabarro: While not wishing to probe that, would the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that electrification of long-distance railway lines is only commercially viable and successful where the routes are very heavily loaded, as between London and Crewe, Liverpool and Manchester and Birmingham but that between Crewe and Glasgow the loading is relatively very light'? Can the right hon. Gentleman assure the House that this high investment of £25 million for the latter route will be a commercial proposition?

Mr. Mulley: I assured the House at the time that I made the statement that I would look carefully into all the figures and forecasts. It was shown on a discounted cash flow basis that there will be a return of at least 10 per cent. and possibly more with the economies that will be effected as well as the increased traffic we hope to attract.

Mr. Ronald Atkins: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the inconsistency of hon. Members opposite who on the one hand are forever demanding increased investment for British Rail and on the other hand are complaining every time he makes a favourable railway investment decision after careful consideration? Is he aware that I deeply sympathise with him?

Mr. Mulley: I have noticed this and I only wish that it were confined to this one subject. My hon. Friend knows that very often there are bitter attacks on the level of taxation coupled with simultaneous demands for additional burdens on the Exchequer.

Mr. Michael Heseltine: Would the right hon. Gentleman not agree that the questioning from this side of the House on this scheme arose directly from a question to the Minister from his predecessor, the right hon. Member for Greenwich (Mr. Marsh), who presumably had access to all the figures and was obviously very surprised by the Minister's decision to go ahead?

Mr. Mulley: I do not undertake to read the state of hon. Members' minds and to know what prompts them to ask questions. My right hon. Friend asked a very proper question about what the return would be. As I have assured the hon. Member, in writing and in the House, my right hon. Friend had left the Ministry before the latest assessments and figures came in.

Drivers' Hours (Representations)

Mr. Eadie: asked the Minister of Transport what representations he has received from employers and trade unions in Scotland as a consequence of the restriction of drivers' hours provided for in the Transport Act, 1968.

Mr. Mulley: My hon. Friend has passed on to me a memorandum from


a haulage firm. I have received no other representations from individual employers or trade unions in Scotland.

Mr. Eadie: Is my right hon. Friend quite satisfied that there is no misunderstanding among employers and employees about the workings of this aspect of the Act?

Mr. Mulley: I dare say that some misunderstandings may remain. All that I can say is that my Department has done all it can to make information available. Employers have known that the new hours and rules would come into force because they were part of the 1968 Act.

Mr. Gordon Campbell: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the difficulties caused through the carriage of livestock over long distances in Scotland? While safety must be paramount, can he say when the meeting is to take place which has been arranged between the officials and members of the trade associations, about which the Minister has written me? Is he aware that this is an urgent matter into which some flexibility should now be introduced?

Mr. Mulley: An hon. Member has a Question down later. I am shortly arranging for a meeting in Scotland and if, as a result of that meeting between the associations, the Scottish Office and my Department, an urgent need for action is revealed we will obviously consider it.

Driving and Drink

Mr. Cronin: asked the Minister of Transport what changes in policy towards breathalysers he plans following the Road Research Laboratory Report No. 6, which indicates that blood alcohol levels between 100 and 119 milligrams/ 100 millilitres multiply the risk of an accident by five and a half and blood alcohol levels above 160 milligrams/100 millilitres multiply the risk by 21.

Mr. Mulley: This information was available when the existing legislation was enacted and I have no plans to propose any changes at present.

Mr. Cronin: Has not the time come to consider varying the penalty upon conviction in these cases in accordance with the amount of alcohol found in the convicted person's blood? Is it not obviously

unfair that a person who has mildly overindulged and is in full charge of his faculties should have the same penalty imposed upon him as a person who is grossly and incapably drunk?

Mr. Mulley: The courts already have power to vary the penalty according to the circumstances of the case. It is a matter of argument whether there should be certain disqualification in every case of conviction. When this House decided that this should be so, it became one of the important factors in making the Act such a great success.

Road Building (Expenditure)

Mr. William Price: asked the Minister of Transport what was the total expenditure on road building between 1965 and 1969, inclusive; and what was the total for the period 1960 to 1964, inclusive.

Mr. Mulley: For the five years up to March, 1970, expenditure in England totalled £1,180 million and for the preceding five financial years, £501 million.

Mr. Price: Is that not a remarkable set of figures? Does it not demolish once and for all the myth put round by the Tories and their associates in the motor organisations that in some way this Government have cut back road building?

Mr. Mulley: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. [Interruption.] I should have thought that anyone who travelled round the country would have seen the evidence with their eyes and would have discounted the propaganda that certain organisations are putting out.

Mr. Michael Heseltine: I am sure the House will agree that the Minister answered his own Question extremely well.

Mr. Price: On a point of order.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I regret to have to take points of order during Question Time.

Mr. Price: A serious suggestion has been made—that in some way the Minister answered his own Question. Can you advise me how I can refute a lie?

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must withdraw the word "lie ".

Mr. Heffer: Why? The hon. Gentleman said it.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must withdraw the word " lie ". It is not in order to accuse an hon. Member of telling a lie. The hon. Gentleman must withdraw the word " lie ". If not I must ask him to withdraw from the Chamber.

Mr. Price: I am reluctant to embarrass you in any way, Mr. Speaker and that is why I withdraw the word " lie " and say that the hon. Gentleman has made a mistake which he in turn should withdraw.

Mr. Heseltine: I have not the slightest doubt that the Minister answered the Question very well even if he did not himself put the Question down. Would not the Minister agree that, as there is a four to five-year delay in road-building programmes, what his answer effectively reveals is that this Government have built only the roads that their predecessors planned?

Mr. Mulley: On the question of responsibility for the Question, I have a serious confession to make to the House. Until this Question was put down it had never occurred to me to get the sums done to produce the figures. I was very impressed when I saw them. Obviously, the plans on which roads are built emanate many years before the completion of the roads, but there is a great difference between drawing a line on a map and organising, and finding the money for, the building of roads.

Mr. Ellis: On a point of order. May I seek your guidance, Mr. Speaker? My hon. Friend the Member for Rugby (Mr. William Price) was good enough to fall in with your wishes in a very courteous way. There was an implication that my hon. Friend had put down a Question as a result of pressure from the Minister, and the Minister has assured us that this was not so. Do not you agree with me, Mr. Speaker, in view of the courteous way in which my hon. Friend dealt with this, that it was arrogant of the hon. Member for Tavistock (Mr. Michael Heseltine) not to withdraw what he said, and that he should now do so?

Mr. Speaker: I cannot comment on whether or not an hon. Member is

arrogant. I thought he had fairly withdrawn.

Waterloo-Portsmouth Line

Mr. Judd: asked the Minister of Transport what requests he has received from British Railways for approval of capital expenditure on the introduction of new passenger rolling stock on the Waterloo to Portsmouth line and the planned redevelopment of the Portsmouth and Southsea Station site; and what replies he has sent.

Mr. Murray: Approval was given a year ago to the Railways Board's proposal to invest £21 million in 836 new coaches for the longer Southern Region routes including the Portsmouth line. New stock is already being brought into use on this line. The Board has not submitted to my right hon. Friend any proposals for the redevelopment of Portsmouth and Southsea station.

Mr. Judd: Is my hon. Friend aware that, while regular users of the line are full of admiration for the way the staff try to cope with antiquated working conditions, they are tired of being seen as the poor relations of Sussex and Hampshire? Will he do everything possible to prevent delays in the planned modernisation?

Mr. Murray: I have no doubt that Southern Region will take note of what my hon. Friend has said.

Roads, Portsmouth (Pedestrian Crossings)

Mr. Judd: asked the Minister of Transport whether he will make a statement on the adequacy of pedestrian crossing facilities in the road improvement plans submitted to him by Portsmouth City Council; whether he will review the implementation of pedestrian crossing plans there with reference to past delays in opening pedestrian underpasses; and whether he will investigate the traffic hazards related to road developments at Hilsea which lie between local residents and their shops, public houses and schools.

Mr. Bob Brown: Since an oral reply to this Question would be inordinately long I will write to my hon. Friend.

Mr. Judd: I look forward to receiving the letter. The people in the middle of


this development feel that they are marooned in a sea of traffic. Will my hon. Friend assure the House that, whenever similar schemes elsewhere are being planned and undertaken, his Department will see that the needs of local communities and pedestrians are not overlooked?

Mr. Brown: In so far as the responsibility is that of my Department, yes, Sir. In so far as it is the responsibility of a local authority, clearly the local authority will have to bear in mind what my hon. Friend has said.

Dr. Winstanley: Is not it time that decisions on pedestrian crossings were left to the local authority in the area concerned? Why does the Ministry of Transport always think that it knows better than people on the spot?

Mr. Brown: If the hon. Gentleman had made this comment about 18 months ago, he would have done so with some justice, but local authorities now have the right to determine where pedestrian crossings shall be within certain criteria and within a certain number.

Exhaust Fumes

Mr. Raphael Tuck: asked the Minister of Transport whether he will make regulations to control petrol fumes by providing for an exhaust after-burner.

Mr. Bob Brown: We are developing proposals for regulations to reduce fumes from petrol engined vehicles.

Heavy Goods Vehicles (Weight and Size Limits)

Mr. Raphael Tuck: asked the Minister of Transport whether, in view of the report recently made to him by the Royal Institute of British Architects, he will maintain the limit of 32 tons for lorry-trailer combinations.

Mr. Wall: asked the Minister of Transport if he will make a further statement on the licensing of lorries above the present weight and size limits.

Mr. Ellis: asked the Minister of Transport whether he will make a statement on his policy regarding possible revision of the maximum weight of vehicles allowed on the roads.

Mr. Mulley: The views expressed by the Royal Institute of British Architects and by many other organisations and individuals are being taken into account in a thorough appraisal of the implications of permitting the use of heavier goods vehicles. I will announce my decisions and reasons for them as soon as possible.

Mr. Tuck: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the proposed increase from 32 to 56 tons will raise great problems of safety and environmental factors? The present plans for 44-ton lorries would increase the decibels by about ten times the level recommended by the Wilson Committee. Is my right hon. Friend in favour of the industry-financed study, recommended by the Royal Institute of British Architects?

Mr. Mulley: I do not think that my hon. Friend has all his facts right. A condition of any increased size would be that the noise and other criteria would have to conform to standards already laid down, but I have agreed—and this is why the matter is taking time—to a cost-benefit study involving factors of precisely the kind asked for by the R.I.B.A.

Oral Answers to Questions — EMPLOYMENT, WEYMOUTH AND DISTRICT

Mr. Evelyn King: asked the Prime Minister if he will make a further statement regarding the information given in a letter from his office to the Secretary of the Weymouth and District Trade Council on 12th November last relating to the employment situation in Weymouth and district.

The Prime Minister (Mr. Harold Wilson): I assume that the hon. Gentleman is referring to a letter sent from my office on 14th November in which two conflicting figures were given for " jobs in prospect ". The correct figure as at mid-November, 1969, was that given on page 4 of the letter, i.e. 630. As the hon. Gentleman may know, this figure has since been revised.

Mr. King: Does not the Prime Minister also in that letter hold out high hopes for the future? Since he wrote it, has not the unemployment rate gone up by over 5 per cent. and are not the figures


for this month worse than the figures for last month? The Prime Minister also pointed out that Weymouth depends on the holiday trade. Will he, by way of recompense, take the only action possible to help us and remove selective employment tax from those who engage in the holiday trade?

The Prime Minister: My original answer referred to part of the hon. Gentleman's supplementary question. I quoted the figure of jobs in prospect. I share the hon. Gentleman's anxieties about the employment situation in Weymouth, but I agree with him that it cannot just be dealt with, as some seaside town unemployment figures can, in terms of seasonal factors. That is why we are following our present policy in relation to I.D.C.'s there. S.E.T. was debated fully during the Budget debate.

Oral Answers to Questions — NUCLEAR DEFENCE

Mr. Blaker: asked the Prime Minister what recent consultations he has had with President Nixon about Great Britain's worldwide nuclear defence role.

The Prime Minister: I have nothing to add to what I told the House following my recent meeting with President Nixon, in reply to Questions on 29th January and 3rd February.—[Vol. 794, c. 1713–19; Vol. 795, c. 209–14.]

Mr. Blaker: Will the Prime Minister accept my congratulations on maintaining a nuclear capability outside the N.A.T.O. area?

The Prime Minister: The situation outside the N.A.T.O. area has not changed in any way, and this has been made clear in successive defence debates and White Papers.

Mr. Ridsdale: Does not the Prime Minister think that these complex, technical defence matters would be far better dealt with by a Select Committee on Defence? What is the Prime Minister's view on a Select Committee on Defence, since he refuses to answer Questions in the House about it?

The Prime Minister: I think it would raise many difficulties. We have discussed this many times in the House and,

as the hon. Gentleman knows, the whole question of the future of Select Committees is at present being considered by the Government. More than once in this Parliament we have suggested that on all matters of defence, without holding back any matters of top secrecy, we were prepared to share the defence secrets with the Opposition Front Bench, so that these matters could be looked at on a more bipartisan basis. The hon. Gentleman will realise the difficulties of doing this by a Select Committee.

Mr. Hugh Jenkins: Is not it sad to hear my right hon. Friend say that our nuclear position in the world has not changed? Did not he undertake to change it and will he now proceed to do so?

The Prime Minister: No, Sir. My hon. Friend can feel reassured about this. So far as Polaris was concerned and the Nassau Agreement, under our predecessors and under us, that has been committed to N.A.T.O.; it remains in N.A.T.O.; nothing has changed.

Mr. Heath: Under whose control is the nuclear deterrent outside the N.A.T.O. area? Is it under the British Government and, if so, is it independent? Does the Prime Minister agree with the Secretary of State for Defence that the nuclear deterrent under N.A.T.O. is still under British independent control in case of dire national emergency? The Prime Minister has constantly said that I had half quoted the Secretary of State for Defence. What he said was that it was under our control, but he could not conceive the present Government using it. Is not it correct that that does not in any way reduce the control of any other Government, or indeed of the present Government?

The Prime Minister: What my right hon. Friend said—and I am glad that he has now been fully quoted—is quite correct. I have always agreed with what my right hon. Friend has said—[HON. MEMBERS: " Oh."]—when the whole of the statement is quoted. As I have said, Polaris is assigned to N.A.T.O. Other British forces—it would not be right to say in every detail where they all are—with a nuclear capability form part of our capability to operate worldwide. This


has been the position throughout. The right hon. Gentleman would not expect me to speculate any more than my predecessor did about the circumstances in which they might be deployed.

Mr. Heath: Will the Prime Minister confirm that it is under the British Government's control and command and is independent?

The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman will know that what we are talking about here is aircraft. The aircraft are being phased out as far as their nuclear capability is concerned.

Hon. Members: Answer.

Mr. Thorpe: Recalling that before 1964 it was the Prime Minister's view that our nuclear weapons were neither independent nor a genuine deterrent, are we now to believe that he has changed his view on both matters and, if so, on what grounds?

The Prime Minister: I referred to our independent capability on Polaris which was neither independent nor under our unique control. I gave the House the reason for saying that in December, 1964. There was, as we all said at that time—I remember saying it in Opposition—a limited life for bombers with nuclear weapons. We said in Opposition that we did not propose to abolish them but would let them die out naturally, and that is the policy.

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: Is it not the position that the whole nuclear armoury that we own is under our own control, and that, although the submarines are allocated to N.A.T.O. for the purpose of N.A.T.O. targeting, they can be withdrawn in a state of dire national need, and that there is no change between the Nassau Agreement in that respect and the present position?

The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman has missed some of the exchanges on that. [HON. MEMBERS: " Answer."] The answer to that question is—[HON. MEMBERS: " Yes."]—the direct answer to that question was given in a debate in December, 1964, when I said they would only be withdrawn if N.A.T.O. were to collapse and in no other circumstances.

Oral Answers to Questions — MINISTRY OF LEISURE

Mr. Henig: asked the Prime Minister if he will introduce legislation to create a Ministry of Leisure.

The Prime Minister: I have no plans to do so at present, Sir, but the machinery of Government is kept under constant review.

Mr. Henig: I wonder if my right hon. Friend would continue to keep this matter under close review in view of the fact that fortunately the bulk of the population has an increasing amount of leisure time? Would it not be appropriate for a Government concerned with the good life to make sure that such leisure facilities as theatres and sports stadia are available to all people in all parts of the country?

The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend will be aware of what the Government have done, first in the arts where we have not only substantially increased the financial provision, but have also done far more in the regions than our predecessors, including for the first time capital assistance in those projects. He will also be aware of how much more we have done in relation to sports grounds and sports facilities for those who did not have the advantage of them at school, and furthermore with what we have done about access to the countryside in relation to the Countryside Commission both in England and Wales and in Scotland.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Is not the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity entitled to this title in view of the fact that she has created a great deal of unwanted leisure with the highest level of sustained unemployment since the war?

The Prime Minister: That was the one predictable supplementary question I knew was coming when I saw this Question on the Order Paper, though I thought it would have come from the hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Peyton), not from the right hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter). The House will be aware that I have dealt with this question on many occasions at Question Time.

Hon. Members: Answer.

Mr. Alfred Morris: Now that more and more people are coming over here from the Common Market to spend part of their leisure time at weekends shopping in Britain, free from the rigours of the value-added tax and levies on food imports, could we have a Minister for Leisure to help with the incoming tourists?

The Prime Minister: I also have read the fascinating accounts in our national newspapers yesterday morning about the armada or invasion at Folkestone at the weekend, and I endorse what my hon. Friend said. But if he is suggesting that the Opposition would put up the cost of living through their value-added tax and their food levies, that is not our policy as it is the policy of the Conservative Party. We would be prepared to accept these things only as part of a favourable Common Market agreement. The Conservative Party propose to do it without joining the Common Market. Further to my hon. Friend's question, of course equally its declared policy would mean far more unemployment than we have in Britain at the moment.

Mr. Hordern: If the Prime Minister appoints a Minister for Leisure, will he treat him better than he has treated his Minister for Sport over the South African test team? Since he has been so busy promoting demonstrations, will he accept responsibility for any violence that may occur during these cricket matches?

The Prime Minister: My right hon. Friend the Minister for Sport has made the position of the Government clear in identical terms to my own on this matter. But since the hon. Gentleman has raised this question, in view of the very high distortion coefficient of my remarks one always gets from the Conservative Party, I will answer him by repeating what I said and the House can judge.

Hon. Members: Have you got it there?

The Prime Minister: Yes. I knew somebody would be daft enough to ask it. What I said in the House on 16th April was this:
…all of us can demonstrate our detestation of apartheid in peaceful ways in a peaceful country. There is no justification whatever for breaking the law or indeed, for interfering with sport, however ill-judged the decision to invite

the tour."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 16th April, 1970; Vol. 799, c. 1568.]
That is what I said in the House. On television I said:
 I say that they should be allowed to play their matches. I do not believe they should be disrupted by digging up pitches or violence. I believe that everyone should be free to demonstrate against apartheid. I hope people will feel free to do that. But not by violent methods.
If the three right hon. Gentlemen opposite who were orchestrated into distorting these remarks in their speeches last weekend are saying that it is Tory policy to introduce a law to ban free demonstrations in this country, perhaps their leader will say so.

Oral Answers to Questions — SPAIN

Mr. Peter Archer: asked the Prime Minister whether he will make an official visit to Spain this year.

The Prime Minister: No, Sir.

Mr. Archer: Will the Prime Minister accept my congratulations? Would it not be excellent if his good example were followed by others who, while assisting the Spanish economy, are helping to keep in prison any priests, trade unionists and writers whose only offence is to disagree with the present Government?

The Prime Minister: It is not for Her Majesty's Government to comment on the trials and other matters raised by my hon. Friend. There is nothing to stop my hon. Friend, though I gather he does not wish to go to Spain, or the organisation with which I know he is concerned, Amnesty International, from sending observers, but I do not think it would be right for Her Majesty's Government to be represented.

Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: Do not congratulations come very oddly to this Government who, by introducing travel restrictions, had the direct effect of encouraging an increasing proportion of British tourists to go so Spain?

The Prime Minister: I think that congratulations are due to this Government and to the previous Opposition for their vehement opposition to the policy of the previous Government, who greeted the new Spanish demands on Gibraltar by offering to sell the Spanish Government frigates.

CLIENTS' MONEY (ACCOUNTS)

3.30 p.m.

Mr. Anthony Grant: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to make special provision for safeguarding clients' money or deposits; and for purposes connected therewith.
This is a modest, non-controversial, but, nevertheless, important Measure. First, I want to pay tribute to the work which has been done on it by a former Member of the House, Mr. William Clark, who, I confidently expect, will be back with us after the next General Election.
The Bill has already had a short Second Reading. About three years ago, it was, unfortunately, talked out by hon. Members opposite on a technical detail. However, its principle was not basically opposed, and that principle is best described in the Short Title, which is
…to make special provision for safeguarding clients' money or deposits; and for purposes connected therewith.
The best way to describe the need for the Bill is to say that, for the vast majority, the biggest financial transaction that a person undertakes in his life is the purchase of a house. Most people achieve that through the sweat of their brows, by saving sufficient money for the deposit, and they borrow the rest from a building society. With soaring house prices in recent years, such a deposit can involve several hundred pounds. Almost invariably, the deposit is paid to the estate agent concerned with the transaction. If, as has happened on too many occasions in recent years, the estate agent in question goes bankrupt, or absconds, the unfortunate client has no redress, and no means of getting back his money.
The purpose of my Bill, therefore, is to compel such deposits to be kept in separate accounts, in the same way as is already compulsory for solicitors who hold money on behalf of clients. Incidentally, the Bill also provides for interest to be paid on such deposits in much the same way, though not so stringently, as that provided in the Solicitors Act.
Another and lesser example of the need for the Bill can be illustrated by citing the misfortunes that people sometimes suffer at the hands of travel agents,

happily in a minority of cases. It sometimes happens that a person saves for an exciting and well-earned holiday and deposits his money with a travel agent to disburse on his behalf. If that travel agent happens to go broke, as has happened in a number of well-publicised cases in recent years, both the money and the holiday of the unfortunate client are lost. In my Bill, I include other professions and activities holding money on behalf of clients.
I accept that the Bill will not prevent deliberate fraud. Legislation cannot do that. But most of the tragedies which have occurred in this connection have been caused not so much by fraud as by incompetence and muddle resulting from putting all clients' money into one account. This would be prevented if it were made compulsory to keep such money separate, as my Bill proposes.
I accept, too, that it would be best if the profesional bodies concerned imposed this rule themselves. But, so far, although there has been an abortive attempt to form a united estate agents' body, there is not much sign of progress in this direction.
My Bill is not only intended to protect the public. It is hoped, also, that it will enhance the status of the majority of agents and professional men in the eyes of the public, who will be given increasing confidence to deposit their money with these professional people. It would prevent honourable occupations being given a bad name by what is undoubtedly a minority of black sheep in their ranks.
For those reasons, and because I believe that this small Bill is a necessary and worthy Measure, I commend it to the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Anthony Grant, Mr. Reginald Eyre, Mr. John Hunt, Mr. Graham Page, Mr. Hugh Rossi, Sir Barnett Janner, and Mr. Gordon Oakes.

CLIENTS' MONEY (ACCOUNTS)

Bill to make special provision for safeguarding clients' money or deposits; and for purposes connected therewith, presented accordingly, and read the First time; to be read a Second time upon 15th May and to be printed. [Bill 160.]

PORTS BILL (BUSINESS COMMITTEE)

Ordered,

That the Report [27th April] of the Business committee be now considered,—[Mr. Peart]

Report considered accordingly.

Question, That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution, put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 43A (Allocation of tithe to Bills):—

The House divided: Ayes 246, Noes 171.

Division No. 107.]
AYES
[3.35 p.m.


Albu, Austen
Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)
McCann, John


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Evans, loan L. (Birm'h'm, Yardley)
MacColl, James


Alldritt, Walter
Finch, Harold
Macdonald, A. H.


Allen, Scholefield
Fletcher, Rt. Hn. Sir Eric(Islington, E.)
McElhone, Frank


Archer, Peter (R'wley Regis &amp; Tipt'n)
Fletcher, Raymond (Iikeston)
McGuire, Michael


Armstrong, Ernest
Foot, Rt. Hn. Sir Dingle (Ipswich)
McKay, Mrs. Margaret


Ashley, Jack
Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)
Mackie, John


Atkins, Ronald (Preston, N.)
Ford, Ben
Mackintosh, John P.


Atkinson, Norman (Tottenham)
Forrester, John 
Maclennan, Robert


Bacon, Rt. Hn. Alice
Fraser, John (Norwood)
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Freeson, Reginald
MacPherson, Malcolm


Barnett, Joel
Galpern, Sir Myer
Mahon, Peter (Preston, S.)


Baxter, William
Garrett, W. E.
Mahon, Simon (Bootle)


Beaney, Alan
Ginsburg, David
Mallalieu. J. P. W.(Huddersfield, E.)


Bence, Cyril
Golding, John
Marquand, David


Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood
Gray, Dr. Hugh (Yarmouth)
Marsh, Rt. Hn, Richard


Bennett, James (G'gow, Bridgeton)
Gregory, Arnold
Mason, Rt Hn. Roy


Bidwell, Sydney
Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)
Mayhew, Christopher


Binns, John
Gunter, Rt. Hn. R. J.



Bishop, E. S.
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert


Booth, Albert
Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)
Mendelson, John


Bossom, Sir Clive
Hannan, William
Mikardo, Ian


Boston, Terence
Harper, Joseph
Millan, Bruce


Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Miller, Dr. M. S.


Boyden, James
Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith
Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)


Bradley, Tom
Haseldine, Norman
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)


Bray, Dr. Jeremy
Hattersley, Roy
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)


Brooks, Edwin
Hazell, Bert
Morris, John (Aberavon)


Brown, Rt. Hn. George (Belper)
Heffer, Eric S.
Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick


Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)
Henig, Stanley
Murray, Albert


Brown, Bob(N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, W.)
Herbison, Rt. Hn. Margaret
Neal, Harold


Brown, R. W. (Shoreditch &amp; F'bury)
Hilton, W. S.
Newens, Stan


Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn)
Hobden, Dennis
Noel-Baker, Rt. Hn. Philip


Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)
Hooley, Frank
Oakes, Gordon


Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Ogden, Erlc


Cant, R. B.
Howarth, Robert (Bolton, E.)
O'Halloran, Michael


Carmichael, Neil
Howle, W.
O'Malley, Brian


Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara
Hoy, Rt. Hn. James
Oram, Bert


Chapman, Donald
Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Orbach, Maurice


Coe, Denis
Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Onme, Stanley 


Concannon, J. D.
Hunter, Adam





Oswald, Thomas


Conlan, Bernard
Hynd, John
Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, S'tn)


Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Irvine, Rt. Hn. Sir Arthur
Page, Derek (King's Lynn)


Crawshaw, Richard
Jackson, Colin (B'h'se &amp; Spenb'gh)
Paget, R. T.


Cronin, John
Jackson, Peter M. (High Peak)
Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles


Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Janner, Sir Barnett
Park, Trevor


Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard
Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Parkyn, Brian (Bedford)


Dalyell, Tam
Jeger, Mrs. Lena (H'b'n&amp;St.P'cras,S.)
Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)


Darling, Rt. Hn. George
Jenkins Huch (Putney)
Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred


Davidson, Arthur (Accrington)

Pentland Norman


Davies, E. Hudson (Conway)
Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)




Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.)
Perry, Ernest G. (Battersea, S.)


Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
Jones Dan (Burnley)
Perry, George H. (Nottingham, S.)


Davies, Dr. Ernest (Stretford)




Davies Rt. Hn. Harold (Leek)
Jones, Rt. Hn. Sir Elwyn (W.Ham, S.)
Price, Christopher (Perry Barr)


Davies, I for (Gower)
Jones, T, Alec (Rhondda, West)
Price, William (Rugby)




Probert, Arthur


Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
Judd, Frank
Randall Harry


de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey
Kelley, Richard



Delargy, H. J.
Kenyon, Clifford
Rankin, John


Dewar, Donald
Kerr, Dr. David (W'worth, Central)
Rees, Merlyn


Diamond, Rt. Hn. John
Latham, Arthur
Rhodes, Geoffrey


Dobson, Ray
Lawson, George
Richard, Ivor


Doig, Peter
Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick (Newton)
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Driberg, Tom
Lee, Rt. Hn. Jennie (Cannock)
Roberts, Rt. Hn. Goronwy


Dunn, James A.
Lever, Rt. Hn. Harold (Cheetham)
Roberts, Gwilym (Bedfordshire, S.)


Dunwoody, Dr. John (F'th &amp; C'b'e)
Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)
Robertson, John (Paisley)


Eadie, Alex
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Robinson, Rt. Hn. Kenneth (St.P'c'as)


Edelman, Maurice
Lipton, Marcus
Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)


Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
Lomas, Kenneth
Rose, Paul


Ellis, John
Loughlin, Charles
Rowlands, E.


English, Michael
Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)
Sheldon, Robert


Ennals, David
Mabon Dr. J. Dickson
Shinwell, Rt. Hn. E.




Sillars, J.
Tinn, James
Wilkins, W. A.


Silverman, Juliu3
Tomney, Frank
Williams, Alan Lee (Hornchurch)


Slater, Joseph
Tuck, Raphael
Williams, Clifford (Abertillery)


Small, William
Varley, Eric G.
Willis, Rt. Hn. George


Snow, Julian
Walden, Brian (All Saints)
Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)


Steele, Thomas (Dunbartonshire, W.)
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)
Winnick, David


Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael
Wallace, George
Woodburn, Rt. Hn. A.


Stonehouse, Rt. Hn. John
Watkins, David (Consett)
Woof, Robert


Strauss, Rt. Hn. C. R.
Watkins, Tudor (Brecon &amp; Radnor)
Wyatt, Woodrow


Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley
Wellbeloved, James



Swain, Thomas
Whitaker, Ben
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Symonds, J. B.
White, Mrs. Eirene
Mr. William Hamling and


Taverne, Dick
Whitlock, William
Mr. Neil McBride


Thornton, Ernest






NOES


Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)
Godber, Rt. Hn. J. B.
Nabarro, Sir Gerald


Amery, Rt. Hn. Julian
Goodhart, Philip
Neave, Airey


Archer, Jeffrey (Louth)
Goodhew, Victor
Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael


Atkins, Humphrey (M't'n &amp; M'd'n)
Gower, Raymond
Onslow, Cranley


Baker, Kenneth (Acton)
Grant, Anthony
Osborn, John (Hallam)


Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)
Grieve, Percy
Page, John (Harrow, W.)


Barber, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Hall, John (Wycombe)
Pardoe, John


Batsford, Brian
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Pearson, Sir Frank (Clitheroe)


Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton
Harrison, Brian (Maldon)
Peyton, John


Bell, Ronald
Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere
Pounder, Rafton


Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)
Hastings, Stephen
Price, David (Eastleigh)


Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Cos. &amp; Fhm)
Heald, Rt. Hn. Sir Lionel
Pym, Francis


Berry, Hn. Anthony
Heseltine, Michael
Rees-Davies, W. R.


Blaker, Peter
Hiley, Joseph



Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.)
Hill, J. E. B.
Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David




Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


Bossom, Sir Clive
Hirst, Geoffrey
Ridley Hn. Nicholas


Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John
Hooson Emlyn
Ridsdale Julian


Boyle, Rt. Hn. Sir Edward
Hunt, John
Robson Brown, Sir William


Brewis, John
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Royle, Anthony


Brinton, Sir Tatton
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
St John-Stevas Norman


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)
Sandys, Rt. Hn. D.


Bryan, Paul
Jennings, J. C. (Burton)
Scott-Hopkins, James


Buchanan-Smith, Alick(Angus, N &amp; M)
Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)
Sharples, Richard


Buck, Antony (Colchester)
Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith
Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh &amp; Whitby)


Bullus, Sir Eric
Kershaw, Anthony
Silvester, Frederick


Burden, F. A.




Campbell, Gordon (Moray &amp; Nairn)
King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)
Speed, Keith


Cary, Sir Robert
Kirk, Peter
Stainton, Keith


Channon, H. P. G.
Kitson, Timothy 
Steel, David (Roxburgh)


Chataway, Christopher
Knight, Mrs. Jill
Stodart, Anthony


Chichester-Clark, R.
King, Tom
Tapsell, Peter


Clegg, Walter
Lambton, Antony
Taylor, Edward M.(C'gow, Cathcart)


Cooke, Robert
Lancaster, Col. C. G.
Temple, John M.


Cooper-Key, Sir Neill
Lane, David




Langford-Holt, Sir John
Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret


Cordle, John

Thorpe, Rt. Hn. Jeremy


Corfield, F. V.
Lloyd, Ian (P'tsm'th, Langstone)
Tilney, John


Costain, A. P.
Lloyd, Rt. Hn. Selwyn (Wirral)
Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.


Craddock, Sir Beresford (Spelthorne)
Lubbock, Eric
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Cunningham, Sir Knox
Mackenzie, Alasdair (Ross &amp; Crom'ty)
Waddington, David


Dalkeith, Earl of
McMaster, Stanley
Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek


Dance, James
McNair-Wilson, Michael
Wall, Patrick


Davidson, James(Aberdeenshire, W.)
McNair-Wilson, Patrick (New Forest)
Walters, Dennis


Dean, Paul
Maginnis, John E.
Ward, Christopher (Swindon)


Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F. (Ashford)
Marten, Neil
Ward, Dame Irene


Dodds-Parker, Douglas
Maudling, Rt. Hn. Reginald
Weatherill, Bernard


Doughty, Charles
Mawby, Ray
Welts, John (Maidstone)


Douglas-Home, Rt. Hn. Sir Alec
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William


Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C.
Wiggin, Jerry


Emery, Peter
Mills, Peter (Torrington)
Williams, Donald (Dudley)


Errington, Sir Eric
Miscampbell, Norman 
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Eyre, Reginald
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
Winstanley, Dr. M. P.


Farr, John
Monro, Hector
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


Fisher, Nigel
Montgomery, Fergus
Woodnutt, Mark


Fletcher-Cookie, Charles
Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)
Worsley, Marcus


Fortescue, Tim
Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.
Younger, Hn. George


Galbraith, Hn. T. G,
Morrison, Charles (Devizes)



Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)
Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Glover, Sir Douglas
Munro-Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Mr. R. W. Elliott and


Glyn, Sir Richard
Murton, Oscar
Mr. Jasper More

Following is the Report of the Business Committee:

That the following provisions shall apply to the Proceedings on Report and Third Reading of the Ports Bill:—

Number of days allotted

1.—(1) The Proceedings on Report and Third Reading shall be completed in two allotted days.

(2) The Proceedings to be taken on those days shall be divided as shown in the second


column of the Table at the end of this paragraph, and, subject to the following paragraphs, each part of the Proceedings which is to be taken on a day shown in the first column of that Table shall, if not previously brought to a conclusion, be brought to a conclusion on that day at the time shown in the third column of that Table.


TABLE


Allotted day
Proceeding,
Time for conclusion of Proceedings


p.m.


First day
New clauses and Part I
10.30


Second day
Part II
7.15



All remaining proceedings on report
9.15



Third reading
10.30

Supplemental

2.—(1) On an allotted day—

(a)paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 2 (Exempted business) shall apply to the Proceedings on the Bill for half an hour after Ten o'clock, and those Proceedings shall be deemed to be included in the Proceedings specified in the said paragraph (1) for that period;
(b)no opposed private business shall be taken;
(c)no dilatory Motion with respect to, or in the course of, Proceedings on the Bill shall be made except by a Member of the Government, and the Question on any such Motion shall be put forthwith; and
(d)Standing Order No. 13 (Motions for leave to bring in Bills and nomination of select committees at commencement of public business) shall not apply.

(2) Any deferment under sub-paragraph (l)(a) of this paragraph shall be in addition to any deferment under Standing Order No. 9 (Adjournment on specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration).

3.—(1) For the purpose of bringing to a conclusion any Proceedings which are to be brought to a conclusion at a time appointed by these recommendations and which have not previously been brought to a conclusion,

Mr. Speaker shall forthwith proceed to put the following Questions (but no others) that is to say:—

(a) the Question or Questions already proposed from the Chair, or necessary to bring to a decision a Question so proposed (including, in the case of a new Clause or new Schedule which has been read a second time, the Question that the Clause or Schedule be added to the Bill);
(b) the Question on any Amendment or Motion standing on the Order Paper in the name of any Member, if that Amendment or Motion is moved by a Member of the Government;
(c) any other Question necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded, and on a Motion so moved for a new Clause or a new Schedule, Mr. Speaker shall put only the Question that the Clause or Schedule be added to the Bill.

(2) Proceedings under sub-paragraph (1) of this paragraph shall not be interrupted under any Standing Order relating to the Sittings of the House.

(3) If, on an allotted day, a Motion is made under Standing Order No. 9 (Adjournment on specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration), the bringing to a conclusion of any Proceedings on the Bill which, under these recommendations, are to be brought to a conclusion on that day at any hour falling after the beginning of the Proceedings on that Motion shall be deferred for a period equal to the duration of the Proceedings on that Motion.

4. Nothing in these recommendations shall—

(a) prevent any Proceedings on Report or Third Reading of the Bill from being taken or completed earlier than is required by the recommendations, or
(b) prevent any business (whether on the Bill or not) from being proceeded with on any day after the completion of all such Proceedings on the Bill as are to be taken on that day.

5. In these recommendations allotted day' means any day (other than Friday) on which the Bill is put down as the first Government Order of the Day.

Orders of the Day — PORTS BILL

As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.

3.40 p.m.

Mr. Eric S. Heffer (Liverpool, Walton): On a point of order. Looking through the provisional selection of Amendments, I notice that Amendment No. 5, in Clause 1, page 2, line 17, leave out ' five million ' and insert ' one hundred thousand ', tabled in my name, and the names of many of my hon. Friends, has, unfortunately, not been selected at this stage.
The Amendment raises the whole question of extending public ownership to ports with 100,000 tons of cargo rather than the 5 million tons in the Bill. I understand that in Committee there was debate on an Amendment which had the figure of 2 million tons—not as low as 100,000 tons in Amendment No. 5.
This is a matter of great importance. There is a considerable body of opinion, particularly in port areas like Liverpool and London, which feels that there must be an extension of public ownership along the lines suggested in the Amendment. In those circumstances, and so that the House should be able to express an opinion, I should like to ask you, Mr. Speaker, to reconsider your provisional selection of Amendments and give us the opportunity of having Amendment No. 5 selected for debate.

Mr. Michael Heseltine: Further to that point of order.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I will deal with the point of order as it arises.
The hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heifer) was courteous enough to inform me this morning that he might be pleading for the selection of Amendment No. 5. As I informed the House on Friday, if it became common practice to question the selection of Amendments on Report it would be an embarrassment to the House. I should hope that, as a general rule, Mr. Speaker's selection, which is made only after prolonged study of all factors, would be accepted.
I point out to the House that the principles which guide selection I gave in evidence to the Select Committee on Procedure, when it was considering the Report stage of Bills. I will not mention them all now.
On the other hand, as I have also observed, representations are made to me very occasionally on behalf of an Amendment. The representation to which we have just listened from the hon. Member for Walton, and the representations which he made to me this morning, fall into that category—[HON. MEMBERS: " Oh."] Order. So, after careful consideration of what he has said, I am prepared to add Amendment No. 5 to the list of selections that I have posted—[HON. MEMBERS:Oh."] Order. We are under the Guillotine. We have a lot of work to do.

Mr. Michael Heseltine: Mr. Speaker, I had hoped to catch your eye before you gave your Ruling, as this is a most crucial decision. Of course, it would not be for me to question your position once you have taken it, but the difficulty in which the Opposition find themselves is that a policy substantially along the lines of that advocated by the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) was debated on Amendment No. 92 in the Standing Committee. During the course of his submission to you the hon. Member referred to Amendment No. 80, which proposes to reduce the qualification tonnage from 5 million to 2 million. That is perfectly true; it was discussed, but so, at the same time, was another amendment, No. 92, which removed any qualification whatsoever and, in other words, went back to the original policy proposed by the Working Party on Ports of the hon. Member for Poplar (Mr. Mikardo), proposing total nationalisation of all ports.
Over five years there has been considerable debate within the Government as to what ports should be nationalised. This has formed the background to a major national discussion. It has been the subject of varying policies and varying times, starting with the hon. Member for Poplar moving to the right hon. Lady now the First Secretary of State, who advocated a policy along the lines of the Amendment suggested by the hon. Member for Walton. This policy was then abandoned by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Greenwich (Mr. Marsh),


when he was Minister of Transport. It was, therefore, upon the basic policy reached by the Government that the Bill now before us was presented to the House. It was a fundamental and integral part of the Bill that it should be limited to the major ports—

Mr. Speaker: Order. This debate will arise when we come to the Amendment.

Mr. Heseltine: I am trying to make this particular point because I have to put it in context so as to submit to you, Mr. Speaker, the aspect on which I feel strongly.
This particular decision was taken by the Government as their fundamental and final recommendation to the House as the kind of Bill we should discuss. I would submit to you that it is, therefore, a subject essentially fit for Second Reading debate. It was, however, then discussed at various times in Committee. But much more important than that is the dilemma in which the Opposition now find themselves; because with your provisional selection of Amendments we have new Clause 1, all the Government Amendments and Government Amendment No. 4, all of which are relatively small Amendments on a vital major Bill.
We are, as you have rightly pointed out, Mr. Speaker, under the guillotine procedure and, therefore, the first major Amendment to be called will be Amendment No. 5, that which is now being added to your original selection; and it is more than possible that we on the Opposite benches shall find a debate that ranges, throughout the very limited time that we have available to us, not on the objections of the Opposition, but upon the pressures from the Minister's back benches.
I really do ask you, Mr. Speaker, whether this is not a precedent of a most serious nature by which the Government benches can hog the time of a guillotined debate to raise the whole question of principle underlying a Bill all on its own.

Mr. Speaker: Selection is a matter for the Chair. It is normal for hon. Gentlemen on one side or the other to be disappointed by the Speaker's selection or non-selection.

Sir Lionel Heald: May I very respectfully submit to you, Mr. Speaker, that after you have allowed a

speech to be made by the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) you should hear both sides before deciding the matter; and may I with the utmost respect suggest that if you do not allow further discussion you will have set a precedent with very great dangers. That a decision of major importance should be made after consultation between an hon. Member and yourself without your having heard any argument on the other side is, I submit, a very dangerous situation.

Mr. Speaker: That is not unknown in the history of representations that have been made about selection.

Mr. Stanley Orme: Mr. Speaker, you have selected this important Amendment, but I wonder what the hon. Member for Tavistock (Mr. Michael Heseltine) would have said had it been normally selected. Would he then have got up and opposed your selection on the basis that it would rob him and his hon. Friends of time? There is also the fact that, under a guillotine Motion, you select speakers for and against, as you normally do. There is, therefore, no question but that this important issue should not be discussed as you have suggested.

Mr. John Peyton: On the point of order raised by my right hon. and learned Friend, I would like very respectfully to express my regret that in such a matter as this, Mr. Speaker, you did not see fit, before reaching your decision, to hear the point of view of the Opposition.
Speaking with great respect to you, Sir, and with acknowledgement of the difficulties you face, it seems to me at any rate that for a second time during a very short period the Opposition are being seriously prejudiced by a decision of the Chair. When the Opposition's chances of discussing a Bill of major importance are limited by a guillotine Motion, an inordinate amount of time is to be taken up by an attempt, which I hope will prove unsuccessful, to push further a principle which the Government have espoused and which we on this side wholeheartedly oppose.
I can only say with great respect to you, Sir, that I most profoundly regret a decision which I regard as unfair.

Mr. Speaker: Order. If the hon. Gentleman considers a decision by the Chair is unfair he has his remedy. He must put a Motion on the Order Paper.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: On a completely new point of order. Is it not the case that all these points of order must be out of order, because no one can question Mr. Speaker's decision on what he does or does not select? We cannot keep on raising points of order. It is solely for Mr. Speaker to decide what he does or does not select.

Mr. Speaker: In spite of what the hon. Gentleman has said, he has raised a point of order.

Sir Douglas Glover: I rise on a point of order with great humility and a good deal of distress, because I believe that everybody in the House knows that I hold you, Mr. Speaker, in tremendous regard and think that you have done a magnificent job as Speaker of the House. But what was said by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Chertsey (Sir L. Heald) is so relevant to this problem. Last week we were in some considerable difficulty on a very great matter of precedent in the House when you ruled before half the argument had been put to you in the Chair. My right hon. and learned Friend has said the same situation is now arising over this matter. You have changed your mind, Mr. Speaker, and you have done so on the representations of an hon. Member who happens to be the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heller), for whom I have very great respect as a parliamentarian. Surely, under these conditions, if you are to change your mind after you have already ruled, the whole House ought to be able to put the argument, pro and con, to you before you reach your decision.
With great respect, I regret very much that you should have announced your decision before you had heard the arguments from this side of the House, which I believe are over-poweringly powerful where we are dealing with a guillotine debate. It means that the Opposition, who are Her Majesty's Official Opposition, will probably have little or no time to make their case because of the limitation of the debate, brought about because, without listening to the argu-

ments from this side, you have changed the decision which you had already reached in the quietude of your own room.

Mr. Speaker: It is not unknown for Mr. Speaker to vary his decision about selection when he receives representations from one side or the other. Mr. Speaker's selection is never a matter of party political debate. It is a power given to Mr. Speaker by the House. If the hon. Gentleman studies the Ruling he will find the position set out there.

Sir Edward Boyle: With great respect, Mr. Speaker, no one in this House, least of all hon. Members on this side, questions Mr. Speaker's right of selection, or the right to change his mind, but it has always been the custom, when a timetable Motion is before the House, for the Speaker so to arrange the course of debate that the greatest weight can be put on those aspects of the Bill as printed to which the Opposition attach the most importance. Is it not a serious matter when a major subject not contained in the Bill is introduced at the last moment which is of concern to the Government side, but not the Opposition?
Some of us can recall past timetable Motions—for example on the Transport Bill, in 1952—when Mr. Speaker of the day was punctilious in granting the Closure and so arranging the whole process of debate that those aspects to which the Opposition of the day attached most importance were given priority within the time available.

Mr. Speaker: I assure the right hon. Gentleman that that was in my mind throughout the whole process of selection.

Mr. Julian Ridsdale: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of your Ruling, would you ensure that we give as much time to the debate on Amendment No. 5 as to the take-over terms of the Manchester Ship Canal Company?

Mr. Stan Newens: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. While not questioning your Ruling, or commenting on it as such, may I ask whether it has escaped the notice of some hon. Gentlemen opposite that the Amendment to which my hon. Friend the Member for


Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) referred was signed, not merely by himself, but by more than 40 Members? Is it not in order for the views of back benchers to be heard just as much as the views of the Official. Opposition on an issue of this sort? Had the Amendment been excluded, it would not have been possible for an important point of view held by many hon. Members to be put to the House.

Mr. Peter Emery: Further to that point of order. Mr. Speaker. May I submit to you that the number of signatures to an Amendment has little or nothing to do with the power of selection? I do not wish in any way to criticise what you have done, because that would be wrong. If you were to select Amendments according to the number of signatures to them, all that we would have to do would be to circulate Amendment after Amendment to collect signatures, a practice which has never been carried out.
When a guillotine Motion is in operation, it is essential that those matters which are of the greatest importance to the Official Opposition should be debated if possible. There are 128 Amendments, and it is more than probable that a number of them will not be reached. The normal procedure under the timetable Motion is that a lot depends on the Opposition as to how quickly we get on with the business, and the number of Amendments that we are able to discuss. To some extent the Opposition control those matters which are debated. Control of the timetable and the matters to be discussed within it are now being allowed to move away from the Opposition to the unofficial opposition on the Government back benches. This seems to be a new approach—not a precedent —and I wonder whether you would be good enough to consider that aspect of the matter.

Mr. Speaker: All those factors were in my mind throughout the whole process of consideration.

Mr. Edward M. Taylor: We do not wish to question your Ruling, Mr. Speaker, but may I ask whether you bore in mind the fact that about half the Amendments have

been put down by the Government and will take up a considerable amount of time, and, also, that the Opposition exercised the maximum restraint by putting down only a small number of Amendments on key issues? The number of Amendments tabled by the Opposition is less on this Bill than on any other major Bill of this kind.

Mr. Speaker: That is always the problem under the Guillotine.

Sir Eric Fletcher: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. It must be embarrassing to some of us who have been in the House a long time that twice within a comparatively brief period there have been a number of criticisms of Rulings which you have given on matters which hitherto I had always thought were regarded as solely within the discretion of the Chair and not open to this kind of challenge and debate, even though hon. Members who appear to challenge your Rulings preface their comments by professions of great respect for them.
I intervene because I think that it would be unfortunate if some of the observations which have been made, notably by the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Handsworth (Sid E. Boyle), the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Edward M. Taylor) and the hon. Member for Honiton (Mr. Emery), were to pass unchallenged.
As I understand the practice of the House, it has never been the case that the Chair, in reaching its decision on the selection of Amendments to be discussed on Report, whether under the guillotine or not, is influenced particularly by the wish of what is called Her Majesty's Official Opposition. I have always understood that where there is a controversial Bill on which hon. Members on either side have views and have put down Amendments, they have as much right to have their Amendments considered as those put down by Her Majesty's Opposition.
As you said, Mr. Speaker, in reaching your decision you give weight to all those considerations. It would be particularly unfortunate if, as a result of this discussion, it were thought that Amendments put down by the Official Opposition had some inherent priority, still less the right


to exhaust the time available for discussion. Surely the over-riding consideration which the Chair and all of us should bear in mind is that all hon. Members are equal, and have equal rights to have considered those Amendments which they regard as worthy of consideration.

Dame Irene Ward: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I do not want to comment on any of the various points of order which have been raised, but there is one point in the submission made by the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heifer) which rather worries me, and I should like to express it so that you can set my mind at rest.
In persuading you that it would be a good thing to reconsider your decision and include Amendment No. 5 the hon. Gentleman laid great emphasis on the fact that many people were in favour of the Amendment. That is what he said, and that was his emphasis. What worries me, Mr. Speaker, is how you could possibly know whether his argument is correct, or otherwise, because this is a political decision. It has nothing to do with the selection of Amendments. My submission—I know that it is a dangerous thing to put forward but I have a right to do so—is that the country does not want the Amendment.
The hon. Gentleman emphasised one point of view when putting the matter to you in the Chair, but it may be that he argued differently when he came to see you. I am in no position to judge. It would be terrible if alterations, which we all acknowledge Mr. Speaker has the right to make, were made on the basis of purely political issues; and I do not like the political issue raised by the hon. Member for Walton. Can you reassure me by telling me whether the hon. Gentleman is right in the emphasis that he has given to this, or whether he is wrong?

Mr. Speaker: I can assure the hon. Lady quite clearly on this point. From time to time, when I have made a provisional selection, both sides of the House argue, and one of their arguments is that the matter which they wish to have selected on Report is important. Whether it is important, I do not know: it is for the hon. Gentlemen who argue their case to say so.

Mr. John H. Osborn: Without wishing to dispute your decision in this matter, Mr. Speaker, and understanding your difficult position, perhaps I might point out that members of the Official Opposition hold the view, a political view, that the wholesale nationalisation of the docks would be a national disaster. Many who wish to use the docks realise that the service which they have given in the past may or may not be put in jeopardy, but feel that it would be put in jeopardy if it were in the hands of one owner and a State-controlled organisation such as the National Ports Authority.
The Opposition, in deciding which Amendments to table, have to be very careful when the Guillotine is operating about what to press and what not to press. In particular, the Official Opposition would be ill-advised to raise an issue which amounts to a Second Reading debate.
There was an Amendment, which was not tabled, in view of our need to conserve time for the other Amendments, in my name and the names of my hon. Friends the Members for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Edward M. Taylor) and Liverpool, Wavertree (Mr. Tilney), which was: in page 2, line 15, leave out " five million " and insert " ten million ".
This Amendment was not tabled because we thought that an Amendment on what would amount to a Second Reading issue would not be wise. Therefore, may I ask two things? First, would you consider the fact that the Opposition have refrained from tabling an Amendment of this type? Second, at this late hour, would you accept a manuscript Amendment to be debated with this Amendment, in the names of my hon. Friends and myself?

Mr. Speaker: The simple answer to the hon. Member is that the point which he wishes to make can be made in the debate on Amendment No. 5, which is selected. I cannot rule on the Amendment which he did not put on the Notice Paper.

Mr. J. H. Osborn: On a point of order—

Mr. Emery: On a point of order—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member for Honiton (Mr. Emery) might leave his hon. Friend to his own problem—

Mr. Arthur Lewis: On a point of order—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I am being addressed on a point of order.

Mr. J. H. Osborn: You have accepted the Amendment put forward by the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer), Mr. Speaker. There was an Amendment which we in the Official Opposition would have liked to put down, but which, in the interests of conserving time, we have refrained from putting down. Would it not be right for us now to debate both Amendments, and for you to accept a manuscript Amendment so that we can debate and vote on both Amendments later on—since you have accepted Amendment No. 5?

Mr. Speaker: That is something which I might consider, but I would have thought, offhand, that the hon. Gentleman can make his points in the debate on Amendment No. 5, and vote, if he likes, against the new Amendment and against the thing which is being amended. But, certainly, I would have no objection to taking a manuscript Amendment.

Mr. Osborn: Further to that point of order. May I bring the manuscript Amendment to you now, so that you may have it before you?

Mr. Michael Heseltine: While I personally—[Interruption.] I beg my hon. Friend's pardon. I did not realise that he was bringing up his Amendment just then.

Mr. Speaker: I am grateful to the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. J. H. Osborn) for bringing up his Amendment with such ceremony.

Mr. Michael Heseltine: Further to that point of order. While I welcome your decision, Mr. Speaker, to accept my hon. Friend's manuscript Amendment, has not a situation now developed in which anyone who wants to hold up a Report stage under a guillotine Motion will in future be tempted to put down a wide Amendment at the very beginning of the time to preclude vital Amendments on the Notice Paper ever being reached? Would it be in order for me to make

representations to the Government that, as their back benchers are now responsible for this new delaying device, more time should be given to this very important debate?

Mr. Speaker: We are under a Guillotine, and most of the time which has gone in the last half-hour has been used to dispute a selection by Mr. Speaker.

New Clause 1

POWER TO EXCEPT BUSINESSES BY AGREEMENT

(1) Subject to the provisions of this section, the National Ports Authority may enter into an agreement under this section with—

(a) any person carrying on a port business at a harbour of theirs; or
(b) any person proposing to carry on at such a harbour a business which, if carried on there, would be a port business,

that, subject to such conditions, if any, as may be specified in the agreement, no application for a vesting order shall be made in respect of that business during such period as may be so specified; and so long as the Authority are precluded by such an agreement from applying for a vesting order in respect of a port business, the power to make vesting orders shall not extend to making an order in respect of that business.

(2) The National Ports Authority shall not enter into an agreement under this section with respect to a port business or proposed port business unless they are of the opinion that to do so will further the efficient and economical maintenance or development of the harbour at which the business is or is proposed to be carried on or will in some other way be of advantage to the Authority as regards that harbour in connection with their duty under section 6(1) of this Act.

(3) In the case of a port business which is being carried on at a harbour at the date when the harbour is placed under the charge of the National Ports Authority as mentioned in subsection (2) of section 33 of this Act, the Authority shall not enter into an agreement under this section with respect to that business if and so long as their duty under that subsection extends to it; and where in pursuance of that subsection the Authority have applied for a vesting order in respect of such a port business, they shall not enter into an agreement under this section with respect to that business unless the Minister has (whether or not after the holding of a public local inquiry or the affording to an objector of an opportunity to be heard) decided not to make the order on the ground that the business is one which may be, and should be, excepted as provided by section 35(3) of this Act.

(4) The benefit of an agreement under this section may be assigned with the written


consent of the National Ports Authority, but not otherwise.

(5) Where an agreement under this section has been entered into with respect to a port business, then, so long as the National Ports Authority are thereby precluded from applying for a vesting order in respect of that business, this Part of this Act shall continue to apply as if the activities comprised in that business constituted a separate port business, notwithstanding that, in consequence of the placing of a further harbour under the charge of the Authority or of the coming into force of any provision of a devolution scheme, those activities would otherwise by virtue of section 34(2), (3) or (4) of this Act fall to be treated for the purposes of this Part of this Act as included with other activities in a more extensive port business.—[Mr. Mulley.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Speaker: I think that it would be convenient to discuss, at the same time, Amendment (a) to the new Clause, in line 14, leave out from " will " to the end of line 16 and insert—
 improve the service offered to users of the harbour ".
and Government Amendment No. 64.

The Minister of Transport (Mr. Frederick Motley): I beg to move, That the Clause be read a Second time.
This new Clause and most of the Amendments on the Notice Paper in my name arise from requests in Committee. Some of the particular points of the Amendments are due to my honouring the undertakings which I gave then. The subject of security of tenure engaged the attention of both sides of the Committee and the Clause, which I would suggest should follow Clause 35, would provide that the N.P.A. may enter into agreement with a person carrying on a port business and that, subject to any conditions specified in the agreement, no application for a vesting order shall be made for that business during whatever period is specified in the agreement.
The National Ports Authority is not to enter into this kind of agreement unless it thinks that to do so would further the efficient and economical maintenance or development of the harbour or be of some other advantage to the authority. It is not, of course, to enter into such an agreement as long as it has a duty to apply for a vesting order, but what we have particularly in mind are situations in which an objection has been sustained to take over by the N.P.A.
We feel it only right that the business concerned, having had its objection sustained, should have the certainty that there would not be again in the near future a similar situation, and that it will have reasonably clear commercial environment in which to conduct its business. This meets my undertaking in Committee, I think.

Mr. Edward M. Taylor: On the principle that we should be grateful for small mercies, we would certainly welcome the Clause, which deals with some of the points advocated so splendidly by my hon. Friend the Member for Southgate (Mr. Berry) in Committee. I am glad that the Minister has made a real concession on this point, because some security of tenure is given to those who will now be cleared after an objection procedure.
Would he be prepared, however, to consider our small Amendment (a) as a basis for improving the wording of the Clause? Two questions arise. What particular period has the Minister in mind in the phrase in lines 7 and 8 of the new Clause:
…during such period as may be so specified…"?
Second, would it not be prudent and appropriate to include the words of Amendment (a) instead of the words of the Clause:
…in some other way be of advantage to the Authority as regards that harbour in connection with their duties under Section 6…"?
In deciding whether such an undertaking should be given to a port business, the N.P.A. should have regard not just to the commercial or other advantage of the N.P.A. but also to whether such a procedure would be generally advantageous to the users of the port. This is a small Amendment to the Clause which I hope the Minister will be able to accept.

Mr. Mulley: It is not for me to say what period would be involved. This is clearly a matter for agreement between the business concerned and the National Ports Authority. In some circumstances, the business may want a short agreement and in others it may want a long one, so I could not say what would be reasonable. Having given the parties the rights to make such agreement, we must also allow them to determine its length.
The other point is that the hon. Gentleman only read out the words:
…will in some other way be of advantage to the Authority as regards that harbour in connection with their duty…".
The important thing is their duty under Clause 6(1) of the Bill and this restricts the words that precede it. What I have in mind is to give them the maximum flexibility in seeking these arrangements. I feel that if there is to be a change and it is desired that the question of improving services to users of the harbour—and I agree this is an important matter; I have the same desire as the Opposition, because the ports are a service industry and their success will depend on the quality of service they provide—I should have thought that maybe the best place to put this would be in Clause 6(1).
If this would meet the Opposition's wish I should consider whether I could find a form of words without commitment at a later stage to put in Clause 6(1). I think that this would be a better way of doing things. This is only in a narrow set of circumstances. This requirement would be of a general part of their duty and not strictly in the same narrow circumstances of the Amendment.

Mr. Anthony Berry: I am sure that my hon. Friend would thank the Minister and accept his suggestion that the Amendment be incorporated in Clause 6(1). The important thing is to have it in the Bill and I am happy to have it in Clause (6). I thank the Minister for the new Clause, which arises out of Amendments which I moved in Committee when I described this part of the Bill as being a supreme example of uncertainty which I know the Minister does not want to happen. I am grateful to him for meeting our point and incorporating this Clause into the Bill, and I advise my hon. Friends to accept the Clause.

Mr. Mulley: I should have pointed out that with this new Clause, Mr. Speaker, goes Government Amendment No. 64, which is consequential, in page 48, line 19, after ' power ', insert:
' (subject to any agreement under section (Power to except businesses by agreement) below) '.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause read a Second time and added to the Bill.

Clause 1

NATIONAL PORTS AUTHORITY

Mr. Mulley: I beg to move Amendment No. 4, in page 2, line 42, at end insert:
(7) The Minister may by order made by statutory instrument (which shall be subject to annulment by a resolution of either House of Parliament) change the name of the authority established by subsection (1) above, and an order under this subsection may make such provision as appears to the Minister to be necessary or expedient in consequence of the change of name effected thereby, including provision for amending enactments (whether contained in this or any other Act).

Mr. Speaker: With this Amendment we can discuss Amendment (b), standing in the name of the hon. Member for Tavistock (Mr. Michael Heseltine) and the names of his hon. Friends, in line 4, leave out ' in ' and insert as a direct '.

Mr. Mulley: This is a very simple point. On a number of occasions people have expressed concern about the proposed title of the new Ports Authority and, in particular, it has been suggested that the word " British " could form part of it. Quite apart from the views which hon. Members may have about its title —and I should be extremely interested to learn about them—I think that it is also a matter of substance to those who will have the responsibility as members of the authority. They, too, will no doubt have views. This matter could also have a bearing on any commercial desirability of starting off with a title which the authority thought properly descriptive.
This follows the precedent in the Iron and Steel Act. The House will recall that the Act originally referred to the " National Steel Corporation "—and by similar powers exercised by the Minister it was renamed the British Steel Corporation. I am not yet sure what would be the most suitable title for the new authority, but I think that the House will understand that some concern has been expressed that " National Ports Authority " is not the most suitable title. This Amendment following precedent, would enable me to alter the title by Order without the cumbersome procedure which would otherwise be involved in having to have numerous Amendments to the Bill.

Mr. Edward M. Taylor: The Amendment which the Government are proposing is one which we hope will never be used, because it is our hope that nationalisation will not take place. But if we are to have a nationalised Ports Authority it would be appropriate that a new name could be considered. On the other hand, the Amendment also gives the Government power by making such an Order to provide any other regulation which they think are needed, if they so desire, as a consequence of such a change.
While I am sure that such changes that are consequential are limited, I think that it is a dangerous precedent that we are putting in so many Clauses like this which give power in regulations to amend other Acts. That is why Amendment (b) says that such changes should be " as a direct " consequence of such a change. This limits the Amendment in such a way that it would not impose any hardship or burden on the Minister or the authorrity and I hope that he will accept it.

Mr. Tom Driberg: I think that " National Ports Authority " is a satisfactory and adequate name for the new authority. The only reason which occurred to me why the Government might at some time want to change the name is that these bodies always become known by sets of initials and there is already an N.P.A. which is concerned with the publication of newspapers. I do not think that it would lead to a great deal of confusion, but there was some confusion, as my right hon. Friend may know, when the Ministry of Overseas Development was set up. It is now known as the O.D.M. and not the M.O.D., because I gather that a number of highly secret papers for the Ministry of Defence landed up on a desk at the Ministry of Overseas Development. Although I support the Amendment I rather hope that it will not be necessary to call it into effect, but it might be for reasons of convenience.

Mr. Mulley: I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Barking (Mr. Driberg) that in seeking a new name for an authority it is desirable that one should have regard not only to the name, but to the initials which inevitably these days the names become reduced to.
As regards Amendment (b), I do not think that there is much difference

between the Opposition's words and mine except perhaps that what they have in mind is that if one uses the phrase " direct consequence " it opens up the possibility of argument very much more. But I make it clear to the House that I have no intention of using this and that my advice is that it cannot be used, in any event, for doing more than was done by the Statutory Instrument that had the same effect for the National Steel Corporation—namely, Statutory Instrument 1107 of 1967.
That merely changed the name in respect of all enactments, instruments, contracts and legal proceedings relating to the corporation. The change in name would have to go through all the documents which might have been issued in the old name so that contracts were in the name of the new body. No more could be done and would be done than this. I suggest and recommend to the House that it follows the precedent and does not accept Amendment (b).

Mr. Raymond Gower: The point which concerns me about this is why the Minister has to have a Clause in this form. Why has he not come for-word with a definite proposal to name the authority in the proposed change? Why clutter up the Bill with enabling powers of this kind? Why did not the Government go into the matter fully and make a decision and put it to the House at this rather vital stage and then the House could decide whether or not a new name was acceptable. Why leave the matter in a sort of hiatus to be decided by Order, after the Bill is passed? It is remarkable. The Government should have made up their mind and put the name for the new authority to the House today.

4.30 p.m.

Mr. Ridsdale: I support what has been said by my hon. Friend the Member for Barry (Mr. Gower). I cannot understand why the Government have not been able to make up their mind about the title of the authority and why they have to bring forward an Amendment such as this. What pressure has the right hon. Gentleman been under suddenly to alter the title? I hope that he will tell us.

Mr. Mulley: I wish that hon. Members opposite would not be so suspicious. It


seems that they think that one never does anything except under pressure. That may be how they behave, but it is not how we behave. I only want to do what is best for the ports industry. I have received representations from many quarters that we should consider introducing the word " British ". No doubt the other place will have views about the matter.
As I have explained, it has been done successfully before without complaint and I think that to follow that precedent would be of general convenience. Hence the Amendment. We wish to avoid the Bill going through without such power. If it did, we would have to have a whole new Act of Parliament to give effect to this proposal.

Mr. Edward M. Taylor: My hon. Friends the Members for Barry (Mr. Gower) and Harwich (Mr. Ridsdale) have made an important point. However, as the Minister has said that he will merely use the same kind of regulations as under the Iron and Steel Act, we have no cause for concern. We would not wish to pursue our Amendment (b).

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Speaker: The next Amendment is No. 5, standing in the name of the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heifer) and the names of his hon. Friends.
I remind the House that we are operating under the Guillotine. In view of the exchanges which took place earlier, I hope that debates can be short and speeches brief.
I have given consideration to the proposal of the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. J. H. Osborn) for a manuscript Amendment, but I have been advised that it would create confusion if, at this stage, we took a manuscript Amendment on which the whole House does not agree, but the points can be made in the debate we are to have on Amendment No. 5, as I pointed out earlier.

Mr. J. H. Osborn: On a point of order. I thank you for your consideration, Mr. Speaker, but I think we had understood that you had accepted the manuscript Amendment. Does this mean that you have changed your mind? The fact that you accepted the paper I handed to you was taken by my hon. Friends

to mean that you had accepted the manuscript Amendment. Your Ruling now puts us in a dilemma, particularly those of us who had assumed that we would be debating a much wider issue. I therefore ask you what the position is.
As I understood, you had accepted the manuscript Amendment, but now, because of precedence and the position you find yourself in—which I well understand—you find that you cannot accept it after all. My hon. Friends and I wished to vote on the content of that manuscript Amendment before the Bill went to another place, on the view that the number of ports to be nationalised should be reduced rather than increased. Now, at this late stage, we find that we shall be unable to vote on the matter. I hope that you will amplify the reasons for the decision you have now reached.

Mr. Speaker: I acted in perfect good faith. What the hon. Member for Hallam submitted to me seemed perfectly reasonable, but I said when he put it to me that I thought the points he wished to make could be made in the debate on Amendment No. 5, which we are now to discuss.
I thought that the hon. Member's request for a manuscript Amendment was reasonable and he brought it to me. It was after advice that I had to come to the conclusion that the House itself would be confused if we had a manuscript Amendment which is voted on at this stage. My object is to help the House and I have no other purpose.

Mr. John Tilney: Further to that point of order. Mr. Speaker. I think that my hon. Friends were under the impression that they would be able to vote on the manuscript Amendment submitted by my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. J. H. Osborn). We may be able to discuss the issue it raises, but the important point is that we should be able to vote on it. I think that my hon. Friends have been under a misapprehension.

Mr. Speaker: I am sorry if I gave a false impression. It is unfortunate that the manuscript Amendment was not put on the Notice Paper when I considered my selections. Manuscript Amendments are very difficult procedure. They are


usually a proposal drafted with which the House as such is in agreement, and that is hardly the position today. Again, I urge hon. Members to be brief in the debates.

Mr. Heffer: I beg to move Amendment No. 5, in page 2, line 17, leave out ' five million ' and insert ' one hundred thousand '.
I make it clear, Mr. Speaker, that my hon. Friends and I have no intention of filibustering. I cannot understand why hon. Members opposite should get so upset and believe that this would be our objective.
We have put down this Amendment because we feel that there is a great body of opinion in the country, particularly in the docks, which feels that there should be an extension of public ownership beyond the present terms of the Bill. The Amendment is designed to bring within the orbit of public ownership a number of the smaller ports which are not included in the Bill. It is true that in Committee an Amendment was moved calling for ports handling 2 million tons of cargo per year to be included, but this Amendment goes further and urges that all ports handling 100,000 tons or more should be publicly owned.

Mr. John Ellis: Will my hon. Friend also concede that in Committee I moved an Amendment saying that we should nationalise the whole of the docks industry?

Mr. Heffer: There were certainly Amendments in Committee suggesting that we should nationalise the whole of the industry, but no Amendment on the precise terms of Amendment No. 5, and that is precisely why it is put down for Report.
Some of my hon. Friends and I feel that it is hardly worth nationalising ports handling under 100,000 tons at the present stage, but we certainly feel that all those handling more than 100,000 tons should be publicly owned. The Bill covers all the major ports, doing 90 per cent. of the trade of the country and 95 per cent. of all the registered dock workers. We on this side welcome this as a very important step forward.
I also recognise that, under Clause 29, future transfers of harbours to public

ownership can take place, and we also welcome that Clause. However, there are certain developing ports which are not included in the Bill and some of them handle over 2 million tons of cargo a year. In the annexe to the White Paper, " The Reorganisation of the Ports ", these ports are named. They are Blyth, Sunderland, Shoreham, Preston, Heysham and Ipswich. All of these ports handle over 2 million tons a year.
There are also ports such as Felixtowe and Harwich, which are reasonably large, have immense potential and are developing. As I have said, the Bill as drafted gives the new authority power to take over such ports at a later stage if it feels it necessary, but I believe that, in the interest of national planning and the organised development of the ports, the transfer of these ports should take place now and not at a later stage. To hold back from taking them over may create greater problems for the future.
The White Paper on Transport Policy Stated, in paragraph 118:
 The National Ports Authority will be the main planning and policy agency, and as such will be responsible for the control of the development of a comprehensive national plan for ports, the selection of particular ports and projects for development, and the relationship of the ports plan and port investment to the National Plan.
This important concept, which was developed in the first White Paper, of the public ownership of the ports, has been weakened to some extent by not including in the Bill all ports handling more than 100,000 tons. Planning, development and investment could take place elsewhere and I believe that this could mitigate against the publicly-owned ports.

Mr. Keith Stainton: Mr. Keith Stainton (Sudbury and Woodbridge)rose—

Mr. Heffer: If I give way I will only lengthen my speech, and that will give rise to complaint.

Mr. Stainton: Is it the hon. Gentleman's impression that the two Harbours Acts which control the national development of ports, whatever their size, will cease when this Measure becomes law?

Mr. Heffer: I am not suggesting anything of the sort. I am suggesting that there could be developments in other ports which could clash with the interests


of the overall control of port development. Naturally, this would have to be discussed, and I am not prepared at this stage to waste the time of the House by going into the matter in detail. I am endeavouring to put my case briefly so that there is ample time for hon. Members to discuss the other Amendments which stand on the Notice Paper.
The White Paper to which I referred also pointed out that
… estimates of our port requirements may have to be modified in the light of the container revolution that is now under way. What this means in terms of berth capacity can be simply illustrated. Whereas an ordinary deep-sea berth may be expected to handle approximately 100,000 tons of cargo a year, a containerised berth can be expected to handle not less than one million tons a year. and possibly more.
In other words, a port which at present is handling only 100,000 tons a year or slightly more could quickly develop into a much larger port without very much development of the port berthing facilities. The development of a couple of new deep-water berths could make such a port a much larger-scale one. We wish to see these ports brought into public ownership at the earliest possible moment.
A few weeks ago the House of Commons saw an invasion of dock workers who demanded the fullest nationalisation of the ports. They urged that all ports should be publicly owned and, frankly—I do not apologise for this view—I thought that the dockers were absolutely right in their demand. On the other hand, they had a number of wrongly conceived ideas in thinking that, for example, the Bill would do things that it will not do and that it would look after all their interests in every respect.
It is also true that if we were to bring into public ownership all ports handling upwards of 100,000 tons, some of the very small ports such as Cowes and Whitstable would be included, and I would regard that as being perfectly correct.
Another factor which concerns the dockers and me is the fact that in the dim and distant future—we know that this will not happen in the near future—we may have a different Minister of Transport who is a member of a Government of a different complexion, or even a

different Minister within a Government of a similar complexion, who is not as keen as the present Minister on public ownership. This would be regrettable and it is, therefore, important that we should make the position abundantly clear. If we are to bring the ports industry into public ownership, we might as well do a first-class job now and complete the task in one fell swoop rather than delay part of the operation until a later stage.
4.45 p.m.
A number of larger ports are not included—large in the sense that they handle more than 2 million tons—although they are close to some of the biggest ports. Preston is a good example of this. I see no reason why Preston should not be included for public ownership, with Mersey and Manchester, and brought under the control of the boards which will cover those areas.
Some of the much smaller ports which would be brought into public ownership under our proposal—I am thinking of ports like Milford Haven, Shoreham and Heysham—have workers who do not come under the Dock Labour Scheme. If those ports were publicly owned there would be a great incentive to develop this scheme for these workers, and this is another reason why the dockers would be happy if our proposal were accepted.

Mr. Michael Heseltine: Mr. Michael Heseltinerose—

Mr. Heffer: I understand that if the Amendment were approved, difficulties would be created in that we would have a Hybrid Bill. That might delight hon. Gentlemen opposite and if they had any sense they would vote for the Amendment. It would at least make it difficult for the Government to continue with the Bill. However, even this difficulty could be overcome. I urge the Minister to consider the arguments which I have adduced and which my hon. Friends will put to him and give a sympathetic reply to the call for expansion and extension of the proposals in the Bill for the ports industry as a whole.

Mr. Michael Heseltine: I regret that the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) was not courteous enough to give way to me so that, for the convenience of the House, he could have explained why the level of 100,000 tons


would make the Bill hybrid when the level of 5 million tons does not.
I protest at the hon. Member for Walton making a speech the points of which were made extremely thoroughly and in great detail by many of his hon. Friends in Committee. He did not adduce one point that was not made on many occasions in Committee. His speech today was a repetition of the case advocated by his hon. Friends, and his intervention has only helped to ensure that we will not have sufficient time to examine the important Amendments which stand in the name of the Minister.

Mr. Heffe: r: All the hon. Gentleman's speeches are repetitious.

Mr. Heseltine: I regard what has occurred as a most serious situation. The hon. Gentleman's arguments were all extremely general: they were vague almost to the point of incomprehension. Not one of his arguments— this has characterised the whole debate on nationalisation—showed what benefits will flow from the Bill.

Mr. Heffer: Oh, dear.

Mr. Heseltine: It would have been helpful had the hon. Gentleman been on the Standing Committee, where he could have done the job in a proper fashion in the right place.
The hon. Gentleman argued that a considerable number of people wanted the Bill. That will not stand examination. I draw to the attention of the entire ports and ship-owning industry, let alone the Minister, the fact that by far his most significant argument was that the Bill represented an important step forward, because, he said, under Clause 29 future transfers could take place.
Time and again the Minister has argued that the Bill should be allowed to pass quickly into law because it will bring uncertainty in the docks industry to an end, and all concerned will know where they stand. It had better be clearly understood that the vast majority of ports that are left out of the Bill do not know where they stand.
All they know is that there is a dedicated group within the Labour movement who will seek to use parliamentary pressure on the Government to operate Clause 29 as soon as they can. This

started under the hon. Member for Poplar (Mr. Mikardo) in 1966, has been continued under this Government, and is now to be continued onward. Notice has been given today that this is to go on.

Mr. Ellis: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I would be grateful for your advice. The hon. Member for Tavistock (Mr. Michael Heseltine) seems to be going rather wide of this limited Amendment. I seek to know how wide hon. Members who speak subsequently will be allowed to go in suggesting that we should nationalise the docks. I think that we should all play the game according to the same terms.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harry Gourlay): I am grateful to the hon. Member for Bristol, North-West (Mr. Ellis), but the Chair never rules hypothetically. I have been listening to the hon. Member for Tavistock (Mr. Michael Heseltine) and so far he has kept within the rules of order.

Mr. Stainton: Further to that point of order. I do not know whether you are aware, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that Mr. Speaker gave the House to understand that this debate could range over the terms of a manuscript Amendment, which has not been accepted, which would lift the amount from £5 million to £10 million.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: In giving my Rulings, I have regard to what has been said previously.

Mr. Heseltine: I took a careful note of what the hon. Member for Walton said and I am going through point by point of the arguments he advanced.
I have absolutely no doubt that hon. Members opposite agree that the logic of those arguments is that notice is now being served that the period of uncertainty which the Minister has been telling us is coming to an end is now only beginning for all other operators of ports and harbours, and not only them but for all those associated with ancillary activities within ports and harbours.
The hon. Member's second argument was that the present policy is weakened by not including all ports over 100,000 tons. As we have not yet succeeded in extracting from the Minister any idea of what is to happen to the ports and no


one knows who will serve on the regional boards and what companies they will take over, I do not understand how the hon. Member can argue that this policy will be weakened by leaving some ports in and some out.
The Minister said that we have a big chunk here and we should let those who are appointed get on with the job. I would have listened to a reasoned argument by the hon. Member on this, but there was none. This has forced us back to the conclusion that this is a doctrinal Bill based on the conviction of hon. Members opposite that State ownership is desirable as an end in itself and that they are moving the frontiers further and further forward regardless of the arguments. The hon. Member convinced me this afternoon that that is one of the fundamental objectives he has.
The hon. Member moved to the argument that the dockers want total nationalisation of the ports. He pointed to a fact, of which we are all abundantly aware, that large numbers of dockers came to the House of Commons a few weeks ago to get their message across. What he did not tell us was where those dockers came from and, even more important, from where they did not come.
To my knowledge there was not a docker among them from Blyth, Shoreham, Ipswich, Heysham, Felixstowe, Harwich, or any of the other ports he mentioned. It is even arguable that they did not come because it was a long way to come. He did not tell us how many strikes took place in any of the ports he mentioned. I know, and the Minister knows, the answer. I am sure that in his heart, if not in his mind, the hon. Member knows the answer. Not a single strike took place in favour of extending the Bill in any of the ports mentioned by the hon. Member.
It was fascinating to see where strikes took place. They took place in Hull, Liverpool and London. In none of the major ports within the proposals to nationalise was there a strike in favour of extending nationalisation to the ports mentioned by the hon. Member. In only three of the 13 ports affected by the Bill can it be argued that the dockers cared sufficiently to strike. It is interesting to note that in Manchester and Bristol, two of the largest ports which are not within the ownership of statutory bodies or the

British Transport Docks Board—one privately owned and one municipally owned — there was no strike and no dockers came to London to advocate the policies put forward by the hon. Member.

Mr. Ellis: In Bristol, the dockers have every confidence—I work closely with them and they give me their point of view— that all docks, not just those of over 100,000 tons, should be nationalised. They knew that I had that point of view and that I was on their side. They did not have to strike to make that known. It is peculiar to suggest that they should have to strike to get that argument home.

Mr. Heseltine: Would the hon. Member explain to his hon. Friend the Member for Poplar why the dockers of London found it necessary to come here to tell the architect of the Bill that they were in favour of extending nationalisation? Anyone with the honesty of the hon. Member for Bristol, North-West (Mr. Ellis) knows that no one has done a census of opinion about what dockers in Bristol want. [HON. MEMBERS: " The unions."] The unions have said it, yes.
I fully appreciate that there are those elected to pursue higher wages and better working conditions who take to themselves political overtones and add to them the belief that they should advocate nationalisation. [Interruption.] I should have thought that hon. Members opposite who are getting so agitated should be more concerned about what those in their constitutencies want than about what the unions want.

Mr. Simon Mahon: Will the hon. Member take it from me that the dockers and all workers on the waterfront believe 100 per cent. in nationalisation? The reason is that their previous conditions—I speak from personal knowledge—were a sin crying to heaven for vengeance.

Mr. Heseltine: At least, the hon. Member is able to argue consistently that dockers in Liverpool have given some indication of support for the Bill, but it is equally true that those in Manchester did not do so. The vast majority have not shown political support, only a small group of people who hold trade union offices in those ports. The most that one can claim is that no one knows what the dockers want.

Mr. John Mendelson: Is it now accepted Tory doctrine, pronounced from the Opposition Front Bench, that people have to go on strike to express a certain point of view about the future of an industry? The hon. Member had better move from that doctrine before his Leader comes back.

Mr. Heseltine: I was dealing with the point made by the hon. Member for Walton that the great case he had was that dockers came to the House of Commons threatening to strike—

Mr. Heffer: I did not say anything of the kind.

Mr. Heseltine: He did not mention a strike, but how does he explain how they came to the House of Commons on that Tuesday morning?

Mr. Heffer: They took a day off.

Mr. Heseltine: Now the hon. Member is saying that they took a day off and went on strike. At least we should have a consistent argument from him.
The hon. Member for Walton added that it is conceivable that there could come a different Minister of Transport who was not so keen on pursuing a policy of public ownership. That is something on which we could all agree. The party I represent would not consider implementing Clause 29. We would not consider allowing the small ports outside the National Ports Authority to believe that they will face the uncertainty which the hon. Gentleman engendered. There is not the slightest prospect of our allowing this wanton and quite unjustified extension of State ownership when we come to power as I have not the slightest doubt we shall as soon as the Government have the courage to test their policies in a General Election.

Mr. Ellis: I ask my hon. Friends not to become so excited when the hon. Member for Tavistock (Mr. Michael Heseltine) takes the particularly arrogant line that he often takes in twisting the argument. Those of us who were on the Committee have great experience of this and have learned to bear it with some fortitude, if not always with patience. He still gets under my skin occasionally.
Avonmouth is in my constituency. The dockers in Bristol are 100 per cent. behind the proposals in the Bill. If they

have any criticism of the Transport and General Workers' Union, of which I am a member, it is that it is not militant enough, and not the other way round. Their feelings stem from the conditions in the Bristol docks up to the time the present Government did something about them. Under previous legislation there were about 70 employers in those docks. We reduced them to a reasonable figure. Men used to have to stand around in the pens at Bristol waiting to be selected for work. Sometimes they got jobs and sometimes they did not.
We on this side of the House are often told to forget the cloth cap of Keir Hardie and the harsh industrial tradition that gave rise to our party. I entered the House at the last General Election. The system in Bristol when I was elected, only a few years ago, was that men still stood around in pens waiting to be selected for employment. For the first time they have good conditions of work, and they know that that is because of the Government's intervention. They are willing and anxious for the Bill to proceed.
Some of the old employers had no equipment. Most of it was provided by a municipally-owned port—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will come a little closer to the terms of the Amendment. He is going rather wide.

Mr. Ellis: I raised a point of order earlier, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I was not in a position to see the manuscript Amendment, but I took it from an intervention that the debate was to be allowed to proceed extremely widely. I shall do my best to keep in order, although it is very difficult in view of the assurance about the raising of points on a manuscript Amendment which I have not seen.

Mr. J. H. Osborn: It may help the hon. Gentleman if I tell him that the manuscript Amendment is in page 2, line 17, to leave out " five million " and insert " ten million ". I hope that I shall have a chance to speak to it.

5.10 p.m.

Mr. Ellis: It is because of the way in which men have been used in the docks that some of my hon. Friends say that the sooner we get the private sector out of the dock industry altogether the better. That will be a red letter day. We are


not prepared to see these provisions watered down so that there are any exclusions.
My hon. Friend the Member for Newport (Mr. Roy Hughes) and I put down an Amendment in Committee saying that we should take over all docks. My hon. Friend the Member for Poplar (Mr. Mikardo) had an Amendment saying that the figure should be 2 million tons instead of 5 million. My hon. Friend the Member for Newport and I saw that we were isolated on our demand for complete nationalisation of the dock industry and, therefore, withdrew our Amendment and supported my hon. Friend the Member for Poplar. Therefore, I very much agree with the present Amendment, which goes some way towards meeting the needs of the situation.
Private enterprise has proved over the years that it was prepared to use the workers only in the most despicable way. There has been a great fight in the docks to end the old system, and we are seeing the end of that fight. As a result of their experience, dockers do not wish to see smaller ports failing to benefit. They have a very real fear here, because they have seen one section of men and one port antagonised against another. They do not want to see this encouraged. It is wrong for hon. Gentlemen opposite. whether they are in opposition, as I think they will be for a considerable time, or in office, or through their private contacts with the industry, to encourage sectional strife.
For these reasons my hon. Friends and I will support the Amendment. We are very pleased to welcome the end of a terrible time in the docks. Now workers there will have real stature and have a say in running the docks in which they work.

Mr. J. H. Osborn: In speaking to the Amendment, I wish to bring in my manuscript Amendment which, as I have said, is to leave out ' five million ' and insert ' ten million '.
When we discussed whether the Amendment should be included, hon. Members on this side pointed out that inevitably its inclusion would make the debate cover a much wider issue. Do we nationalise at all, or do we not nationalise? If we are to nationalise, to

what extent are we to do it? How are the ports to be nationalised?
The Minister is like a bomb disposal officer, wanting to dispose of a high explosive bomb—the Bill. He must want to get it into another place as soon as he can rather than sit on it here.
" Signposts for the Sixties ", 10 years ago, warned us that the Bill and many other measures would be imposed on the country. " Agenda for a Generation " indicates that many more industries will be nationalised. The hon. Member for Bristol, North-West (Mr. Ellis) reminded us of his Amendment in Committee which he withdrew in favour of the Amendment of his hon. Friend the Member for Poplar (Mr. Mikardo). The hon. Member for Bristol, North-West held the view that all ports should be nationalised. That would be one more implementation of Clause Four, calling for public ownership of the means of production, distribution and exchange, which Mr. Gaitskell, then Leader of the Opposition, was unable to remove from the Labour Party doctrine.
The hon. Member for Bristol, North-West, and particularly his hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer), who deployed his arguments very carefully, have assumed that nationalisation will cure many of the management problems facing the ports. That is one of the most false assumptions that can be made. There are problems. The structure of every industry is changing, and so is the structure of the docks, particularly after the 1964 Act, let alone the 1966 Act. A momentum was gained after the 1964 Act, and under a competent Government with the will to implement that Act many of the managerial deficiencies could have been ironed out in the past six years.
This has not happened. We get from hon. Gentlemen opposite an implication —almost an insult—about the competence of the management of these docks. That is fair enough. These are powerful words which will be reported to the dockers in their constituencies. But is this what we really want? We want modernisation and improvement of the docks. But would not proper implementation of the 1964 Act have achieved these objects rather than a measure to nationalise all the ports?

Mr. Heffer: I made no reference to the management of any of the various ports and harbours. In no way did I insult or attack them. In fact, the argument that I deployed was the need to extend and expand public ownership. It may be that many managements will be the same, but they will have a greater opportunity of developing as a result of public ownership instead of being held back, as they are now, by private enterprise.

Mr. Osborn: I think that it was the hon. Member for Bristol, North-West (Mr. Ellis) who used the words " despicable conditions ".

Mr. Ellis: This is their history. They have had terrible working conditions. The men were picked out like animals. I hold the profit motive and the harsh conditions responsible for the state of labour relations now and over the years in the Bristol docks.

Mr. Osborn: The hon. Gentleman has supported what I was saying. He has confirmed that this implies that those who ran, operated, managed and owned the ports would be responsible.
The 1964 Act was passed with all-party agreement. If vigorously implemented by the Government of the day —the Government have had six years to implement it—it could have brought about the modernisation of the docks and improved relations and so made this Measure utterly unnecessary. But I do not wish to pursue this point now.
The hon. Member for Walton said that the dockers in his area welcomed the Bill, and he implied that they wanted wholesale nationalisation. We have discussed whether the dockers who came here were on strike or not. The hon. Gentleman implied that if the Amendment is not accepted the provisions in Clause 29, about which my hon. Friend the Member for Tavistock (Mr. Michael Heseltine) reminded us, will continue the state of uncertainty in the docks. As was mentioned on Second Reading and in Committee, the docks and harbours are not solely for the benefit of the dockers and people earning their living in them. Our docks and harbours are surely for the import of raw materials and stock for our industries and the export of our products to our customers. Industry as

a whole—management, owners, and particularly the workers—wants to be assured that the products of its endeavours can be exported efficiently at as low a price as possible to its customers.
I can assure hon. Gentlemen opposite who have spoken that they do not represent the views of all dockers in their constituencies. I doubt whether the hon. Member for Bristol, North-West represents the views of more than a handful of dockers in his constituency, because he is speaking against the views of many of them on this issue.
If the process and scale of nationalisation goes badly it will handicap and shackle industry for some time to come. The Opposition did not want to debate this Second Reading issue at this stage. with the Guillotine operating. I put forward a manuscript Amendment, and I am disappointed that we shall not be able to vote upon it. Given time, I believe that we might have altered the figure from 10 million to 20 million tons.
This brings me to which docks should be inside or outside this nationalisation Measure. Once the Bill reaches the Statute Book effective competition through our ports will be eliminated. It is suggested that the National Ports Authority will bring about an element of competition. But how can it? It will go the way of the British Steel Corporation which now has standard prices throughout. Therefore, I hone that hon. Gentlemen opposite will consider the consequences of the elimination of this competition. It could mean that the cost of shipping goods through any port will be so high that alternative methods will have to be considered.

Mr. John Mendelson: The hon. Gentleman, in passing, mentioned the British Steel Corporation. He is painting a picture of the users of the ports—the people we represent in this House— being in a worse position. Does he recall that the Steel Users' Association was the first to support the recent price decisions of the British Steel Corporation?

5.15 p.m.

Mr. Osborn: I support the price decisions. I do not think that the steel users supported an increase in the price of steel.

Mr. Mendelson: They did. They are on record—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I do not think that we should pursue this aspect on this Amendment.

Mr. Mendelson: It is important.

Mr. Osborn: I was saying that the British Steel Corporation has established a standard price. I made no reference to the level of prices. The hon. Member for Penistone (Mr. John Mendelson) typically puts words into the mouths of hon. Gentlemen opposite. We are talking about standard prices.

Mr. Mendelson: On a point of order. The hon. Gentleman has on several occasions, quite deliberately, brought in as an example the publicly-owned steel industry. If he is entitled to do that, I submit that I, representing a steel constituency, am entitled to put him right on the facts.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I thought that the hon. Member was going to introduce more detail.

Mr. Mendelson: No. The Steel Users' Association was the first, on the level of recent increases, even before the Government gave their decision, to support the new prices. That should be on record.

Mr. Osborn: The hon. Member for Penistone may put this on record, but it is nothing to do with the argument. If he wishes to clarify what I am saying he is welcome to do so.
If the Amendment is accepted it means that effective competition within British ports will be eliminated. If effective competition is eliminated and if the usual process of a State corporation takes its course and the costs for handling goods go up, then we, as a trading nation, may regret this Measure. I therefore hope that the Minister will resist the Amendment, because free enterprise docks might provide that element of competition which will keep a monolithic docks organisation on its toes.

Mr. Orme: Mr. Ormerose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I have appealed for brief speeches.

Mr. Orme: I will be brief. It is only fair to state that the short speeches have

come from this side and that the long speeches have come from hon. Gentlemen opposite.
I want to come to the central objection of the opposition to the Amendment. My hon. Friends and I find it absolutely extraordinary that hon. Gentlemen opposite should consider that we should not debate a major facet of the Bill in the House as a whole. Many facets were discussed in Committee, but surely the House is entitled to discuss these matters. My hon. Friends and I make no apology for putting down the Amendment, as many of our constituents are involved.
The hon. Member for Tavistock (Mr. Michael Heseltine) in his interjection called the contribution of my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) vague, incomprehensible and incoherent, but he reached quickly enough the central point, that my hon. Friend said that we wanted the Bill to include the vast majority of ports because, otherwise, there will not be comprehensive nationalisation of the whole industry.
I declare my interest in this. The Manchester ports about which a great deal of heat was generated in Committee are mostly in my constituency, Salford. That is one of the ironies of the situation, that the Manchester Docks are in Salford.

Mr. H. J. Delargy: And " Manchester United ".

Mr. Orme: Unfortunately, they are just across the road in Stretford. It has been said that the Manchester dockers had not gone on strike to demonstrate that they were in favour of an extension of the Bill. This is a strange philosophy to come from the hon. Member for Tavistock. Am I to say to those dockers that the spokesman for the Conservative Party feels that they are not expressing their views on nationalisation strongly enough and that in future they must strike? Perhaps he would like to come with me and expound these views, if he does not think that the Manchester dockers are in favour of nationalisation.
Shareholders in the Manchester Docks have come down on me like confetti to protest against the compensation terms, and the Joint Parliamentary Secretary has diligently written many letters dealing with the correspondence which I have sent to him. I have received no objection


from the dockers to the public ownership of the Manchester Docks. Dockers to whom I have spoken—not union officials—are fully in favour of the Bill and of public ownership of the Manchester Docks, and it is a travesty of the facts to say that they are not. It is a smoke-screen put out by the shareholders and by the directors of the Manchester Ship Canal Company, which should come to nought when put alongside what the dockers want and what is in the interests of the industry as a whole.
The development of containerisation in many smaller ports could detrimentally affect publicly-owned ports. Clause 29 allows for the extension, and I want to see Clause 29 implemented when possible. The hon. Gentleman can make what use he likes of that, either in my constituency or elsewhere, but we want an extension of public ownership of the docks. We do not need the dockers to come down to tell us this. That was why, unlike the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Edward M. Taylor), we did not panic when the dockers came to the House on a perfectly legitimate lobby. They came, as the farmers, the teachers and many other sectors of industry came, to express a point of view. That they were not able to persuade my right hon. Friend to accept all the points they made shows that he is not entirely susceptible to pressure, whether from dockers or elsewhere. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Walton that some of the views expressed were misguided because the dockers were not fully conversant with the terms of the Bill.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman must not get wide of the Amendment.

Mr. Orme: I am sorry. The dockers who came here were in favour of the full extension of public ownership and wanted to see docks not included within the Bill brought into public ownership. They felt that there would then be a fully comprehensive publicly owned industry and they would not be threatened by the private sector.

Mr. F. P. Crowder: I declare my interest at once in the port of Charlestown in Cornwall, where we have the happiest relationship with the dockers, and have done for 160

years. They do not wish to own that port. We have looked after them, and they have looked after us, and we get on extremely well. The last thing they want is national ownership.

Mr. Orme: The hon. and learned Gentleman is conversant with the dockers he represents, but I do not know whether they will accept the paternal tones in which he has expressed himself.

Mr. Crowder: They look after me, and I look after them.

Mr. Orme: I will leave the dockers in the hon. and learned Gentleman's constituency to decide for themselves whether or not they favour public ownership.

Mr. Stainton: Mr. Staintonrose—

Mr. Speaker: Since we are under the Guillotine, I hope that we can have a short debate.

Mr. Stainton: I am grateful to be reminded of that. The hon. Member for Salford, West (Mr. Orme) was developing the interesting point about the fears in the nationalised sector that might arise about what is left out of the nationalised sector. One could understand this argument to mean that there is considerably more virility in the private sector than there ever will be in the nationalised sector. Otherwise I fail to interpret the argument.

Mr. Orme: The experience of the dockers leaves them with the feeling that the docks should be brought into full public ownership. They have suffered in the past—

Mr. Stainton: That was not the point the hon. Gentleman was making.

Mr. Orme: That is the argument I am deploying at the moment. The benefits to the dockers within the publicly-owned sector may not be so apparent within the private sector, as we have seen in the aircraft industry.

Mr. Stainton rose: Mr. Stainton rose—

Mr. Orme: I cannot give way, although I want to see the Amendment fully debated. I am not filibustering. We want to see the docks fully efficient and working in the interests of the country, and we want the labour relations of yesterday to


become history. I hope the Amendment will be accepted so that we can go from strength to strength.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I again remind the House that we are under the Guillotine. We finish a certain stage of the Bill at 10.30 p.m. Debates should be reasonably brief.

5.30 p.m.

Mr. Ridsdale: The most efficient ports are the ports handling under 5 million tons of cargo. Have there been any strikes in these ports or any refusals to handle containers? The hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) knows very well that there have been no strikes in these ports or any difficulties in the handling of containers. Indeed, they have been an example to other ports.
Why is the hon. Gentleman being so vindictive in wishing to bring these efficient ports which are working so well within the ambit of nationalisaton? These small ports have been pathfinders to Liverpool and London in their handling of containers and their industrial relations. I only wish the hon. Gentleman would come and visit some of them to see how excellently they are working, both in their industrial relations and indeed in carrying out the recommendations of the Devlin Committee long before London and Liverpool have been able to do.
I understand the depth of feeling by hon. Members opposite because of the difficulties of decasualisation in the past. But because history has been bad in the past this is no reason now to spoil good organisations. That is what will happen if this Amendment is accepted. The hon. Member must know that the wages and salaries paid in the private ports compare favourably with those paid in Tilbury and Liverpool, and indeed exceed them. The reason is that the productivity in the private ports is excellent and they have good capital investment. This is why I am so glad that the Minister is exempting these ports, and I hope that he will continue to exempt them, from the dead hand of nationalisation. I understand the problems in Liverpool and London. but we do not wish to export them to the smaller ports.
My remarks will be brief, Mr. Speaker, in view of your appeal to the House for short speeches. A further important point

is that the management in the small ports is excellent and the relations between management and men in consultations about productivity are extremely good. Why do hon. Members opposite wish to be old-fashioned and doctrinaire? Why do they want to hark back to the old days and to spoil efficient, excellent ports which are bringing so much good to the country?

Mr. Driberg: I shall speak for only a minute or a minute and a half in response to your appeal, Mr. Speaker, with which I entirely agree.
I was astonished to hear the word " vindictive " used of my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer). It is the least vindictive action in the world to try to liberate dock workers or any other workers from the tyranny of private avarice for which the Conservative Party stands.
It was interesting to hear what the hon. Member for Sudbury and Woodbridge (Mr. Stainton) said about public and private sectors, but it does not answer the fears which have been expressed by those who came to lobby us last month. Rightly or wrongly, they fear the possibility of a fairly massive transfer of operations from one of the major ports which are to be taken over to one of the minor ports which are not yet to be taken over, to try to dodge public ownership. If anything of that kind were attempted, and I am not sure that it would be practicable, I hope that the authority would not hesitate to use Clause 29 of the Bill.

Dr. M. P. Winstanley: I oppose the Amendment. I shall try to make a short speech, but as a Liberal I am not privy to the communications that pass between the " usual channels " and I am not sure what precisely is intended by this Amendment. However, it would appear that the debate on this Amendment has come to be the crucial debate on the general question of nationalisation. As such it appears to be the only opportunity that my party has of ventilating its anxieties. I will try to keep in order; no doubt you, Mr. Speaker, will remind me if I do not do so.
I am sure the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) will not be surprised to hear that the Liberal Party


does not agree with hon. Members opposite on this crucial question of nationalisation. We often agree with them on other matters, such as human questions and certain questions of foreign policy on which we talk the same kind of language. But we talk a totally different language on nationalisation. We do not share the passionate belief displayed by hon. Members opposite in nationalisation as a solution to all problems, nor do we necessarily believe that private enterprise can provide all the answers.
We have endeavoured for a long time —and this is relevant to this Amendment which seeks to nationalise the whole of the docks industry—to pioneer alternative solutions.

Hon. Members: Middle of the road.

Dr. Winstanley: What is the matter with the middle of the road? [An HON. MEMBER: One gets run over."] Those who cling to the sides of the road are as likely as others to strike obstacles. We believe that this is a crucial matter.
In organising large-scale functions of this kind it is necessary to observe accountability and a degree of corn-competition. The only answer of hon. Members opposite is that of nationalisation.

Mr. Speaker: Order. We are discussing a specific Amendment. We are not discussing nationalisation in general.

Dr. Winstanley: I do not wish to dispute your Ruling, Mr. Speaker. We are discussing nationalisation in particular, and therefore I will pass from the general to the particular and come to the remarks of the hon. Member for Bristol, North-West (Mr. Ellis). He seemed to suggest that the whole reason for this Amendment was the harsh conditions that formerly existed in the docks. I do not dispute that there were harsh conditions, but it is wrong to suggest that harsh conditions must inevitably exist in any kind of organisation of industry except nationalisation. There were harsh conditions in agriculture, in the cottage industries, and so on. In those cases nationalisation is not automatically the answer. Such nationalisation as has taken place in various sections of the economy, and much of it rightly, has not brought

about the kind of remedies the hon. Gentleman suggests will be brought to the docks industry.
I see, Mr. Speaker, you are not thoroughly in sympathy with me. Nevertheless, it would be wrong if I were to resume my seat without demonstrating that we regard this Amendment as crucial. Either we have more nationalisation or no nationalisation at all. We take a different point of view, and this is the only place I can express it on the narrow subject of the docks.—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Dr. Winstanley: I am getting so used to being called to order that I thought you were referring to me. In fact, you were referring to someone else.
If one could find evidence of an ability to organise industries under public ownership in such a way as to achieve everything that was necessary, out attitude might change. We are not wholly opposed to public ownership. In some cases we recommend it, and even extensions of it. A case in point is water supplies—[Interruption.] This is not a laughing matter. The party in power at the moment is apparently wholly wedded to the principle of nationalisation since it believes that it can solve all the problems—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must confine himself to whether we extend the public ownership of the docks, which is the purpose of this Amendment.

Dr. Winstanley: I thought by now that I had made it clear that I was not in favour of an extension of public ownership of the docks—certainly not to the extent advocated in the Amendment. We do not say that there is no case for the public ownership of certain docks, especially with the integration of transport services generally in certain areas or regions. What we say emphatically is that nationalised control on the pattern followed so far by our nationalised industries is not the way to organise small enterprises such as those envisaged in the Amendment.
It is not the way to run large enterprises like the Manchester Ship Canal Company, which the hon. Member for Salford, West (Mr. Orme) introduced into his speech. He appeared to be arguing for the nationalised control of that


company, and his main support lay in the fact that the dockers are in favour of it. Obviously their opinions must be considered. No solution which is not acceptable to the people working in the industry concerned will turn out to be a workable one. However, that is not the only argument, since we must consider how an industry is best operated.
The Manchester Ship Canal has shown that it is capable of operating in a highly efficient way. For many years, it has shown great imagination, initiative and a sense of public service. It is much admired by people who live in the area. I am one of them, and I take notice of what the dockers think—

Mr. Tilney: Mr. Tilneyrose—

Dr. Winstanley: I will give way to the hon. Gentleman in a moment. I would like to see private industry run in different ways so that workpeople have a greater share in management, and so on. However, the solution provided in this Amendment is the wrong one. If hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway opposite are not satisfied with private enterprise and seek another way of organising matters, they should look for an entirely different way which involves the greater participation of workpeople, co-ownership, and matters of that kind. It is important to make clear that there is a third side to the argument. We do not face total private enterprise or total nationalisation. There is another solution, and we think that it is a better one.

Mr. Tilney: Before the hon. Gentleman sits down—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I think that the hon. Member for Cheadle (Dr. Winstanley) had sat down.

Dr. Winstanley: I promised the hon. Gentleman that I would give way to him.

Mr. Tilney: Will the hon. Gentleman make it clear that the Liberal Party is opposed to all nationalisation of the Manchester Ship Canal Company?

Dr. Winstanley: That is quite correct.

5.45 p.m.

Mr. Simon Mahon: I intervene briefly as the representative of one of the coun-

try's largest ports, and I cannot agree that the tonnage going through a port should dictate whether the port is nationalised or denationalised. My experience of the docks and my interest in the industry's welfare compel me to the view that all our ports should be nationalised one hundred per cent. I have no doubt about that, and I want to offer whatever advice I can to my right hon. Friend.
It was in 1929 that I first set foot on the Liverpool dockside, so I have some experience of an industry which has been turbulent, unjust and undignified. For that reason, I support this Amendment. I believe that it is in the best interests of the industry.
In my opinion, right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite should be ashamed to talk about what has transpired in the past. I do not know how they have the effrontery to talk in such terms, in view of what has gone before.
In Merseyside, I mix with a fairly broad spectrum of people. I do not only mix with trade unionists or people in my own sphere of public life. I mix with ship owners and the people who run the port. Liverpool is the greatest exporting port in the country, and the ship owners operating from it are placing a lot of hope in this Bill nationalising the port of Liverpool. Many of them would like to see its provisions extended to the smaller ports—

Mr. Michael Heseltine: It would help the House if the hon. Gentleman could name one ship owner who has advocated the nationalisation of the Mersey Docks and Harbour Board.

Mr. Mahon: That is the general position which has been relayed to me.

Mr. Heseltine: Name one.

Mr. Mahon: The hon. Member for Tavistock (Mr. Michael Heseltine) is a very arrogant young man. When he was asked for information on a certain point, he treated the House with some discourtesy. Bust I will try and arrange for the information to be presented to the hon. Gentleman in detail. I know a number of ship owners. Only last Friday, I was in the company of a group of shipping personalities. They expressed to me the hope that there will now be peace in the industry.
We cannot hark back to the past all the time. What my hon. Friends have said is right. We all know what happened in 1911, 1912, 1926, and between 1939 and 1945, when there was decasualisation. We can all talk of the past and about the iniquities in the industry. However, we have to move on from there.
My right hon. Friend has considerable difficulties. More than anything else, he wants peace in the industry. He hopes to see a reduction in the number of strikes. However, nationalisation will not bring the millennium. It will bring its own difficulties. Anyone who knows the first thing about shipping appreciates that every ship coming into a dock represents another problem. It is not the docks which are the problem. It is the ships which come into the docks. They bring in problems with them. They bring in trouble and turbulence with them. They present the dock workers with different circumstances. That is just one reason why there will never be peace all the time.
We want fewer strikes, but that situation will never come about unless all our ports are nationalised. While one group of people has different working conditions from other groups, real or imaginary difficulties are exacerbated.
Today, we have heard hon. Gentlemen opposite discussing dock workers in a paternalistic way. However, I want to remind them that most of the personalities who spent their lives in the docks and who would have supported this Amendment gave a lifetime of service to the industry, at the end of which they got nothing.
I wonder if hon. Gentlemen opposite know that the first men to be retired from the docks after 45 or 50 years hard diligent work, having put up with the social and economic difficulties which hon. Members on both sides deplore, received 10s. a week and £100 pay-off money to get the hell out of the docks because they were old and getting in the way. This is the basis of some of the ire which we feel.
I am not a 100 per cent. nationaliser. I do not want to nationalise everything but if one industry is crying out to heaven for vengeance it is the docks industry. We will be making a mistake if we do not close these gaps, because while

they exist we will not get the atmosphere in this industry which my right hon. Friend needs.
Some hon. Gentlemen opposite claim that my hon. Friends who have spoken on this issue represent a particular group in the House and that they are speaking only for those who comprise that group. If ever my hon. Friends were speaking with a united voice in the interests of the nation and this great industry, it is today. We should never forget that our whole economic health depends on this industry, and I hope that the Amendment will be considered in that light.

Mr. Gower: The hon. Member for Penistone (Mr. John Mendelson) and the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) placed great emphasis on the impressive nature of the demonstration of the dockers at the House of Commons some time ago.
It may have been impressive as a token of their support for an extension of nationalisation to cover the smaller ports, but it was valid for my hon. Friend the Member for Tavistock (Mr. Michael Heseltine) to point out that the dockers who demonstrated on that occasion tended to come from the docks which are already embraced by the Bill and not from those which are excluded.

Mr. John Mendelson: Mr. John Mendelsonrose—

Mr. Gower: I will give way to the hon. Gentleman because he is usually fair-minded about these things and will no doubt accept that dockers employed in ports which are not embraced by the Bill were singularly absent on that occasion.

Mr. John Mendelson: I intervened in the speech of the hon. Member for Tavistock (Mr. Michael Heseltine) because he seemed to be saying that unless people go on strike they are not expressing their opinion about the future of their industry. I thought that that was a dangerous Tory doctrine, since he appeared to say that unless one indulges in strikes one is not giving one's view on the future of one's industry.

Mr. Gower: I thought that my hon. Friend said that striking was one method which had been adopted as a token for expressing views.
The feeling expressed by hon. Gentlemen opposite, and notably by the hon.


Member for Bootle (Mr. Simon Mahon), is that there may be great advantage in bringing the whole of this industry into State ownership. This unfortunately, is one of the terrible weaknesses in the argument of those who advocate State ownership. They are intolerant of any excluded sector, whether it be meritorious or lacking in merit. This is an appalling commentary on those who advocate an extension of State ownership.
Those who take this view are avaricious and want to embrace everything. It is not fear but greed. My hon. Friend the Member for Sudbury and Woodbridge (Mr. Stainton) thought that hon. Gentlemen opposite might be afraid of the small sector that will be excluded. They are not afraid. Already by the Bill they are grabbing 90 per cent. of the docks industry and 90 per cent. of the employing capacity of the industry. They cannot endure the tiny sector which will be left out. That is why I say it is greed and not fear.

Mr. Heffer: I cannot understand the hon. Gentleman's reference to " grabbing " and " greed ". Is he suggesting that by advocating full public ownership we shall get some personal gain? His argument is absolutely irresponsible.

Mr. Gower: Hon. Gentlemen opposite are taking over, appropriating, 90 per cent. of the industry, and they cannot endure the prospect of even a small part being excluded.
How on earth can one have any sort of yardstick or competitive element by which to judge the efficacy of the part of the industry taken into national ownership if there is not a sector not in State ownership? The same applies in aviation. Hon. Gentlemen opposite argue that there must be State corporations but no private airlines.
My hon. Friends and I see great merit in the part of this industry which will be excluded. There are obvious advantages in keeping a private sector which contains ports which, by common consent, are now doing a splendid job. For example, Felixstowe is a byword of efficiency. It is a pacemaker. It is the sort of port we want. What evidence is there that if it were embraced within the Bill it would retain its present dyna-

mism? No such evidence has been offered.
There is not a tittle of evidence to show that the inclusion of the smaller ports would increase their efficiency. If the Minister believes in State ownership or private enterprise, or both, I implore him to allow them to coexist. If he believes that the State sector is so superior, let it prove, in competition, that it really is.

Mr. Newens: Many hon. Gentlemen opposite have asked why the smaller ports should be taken into State ownership. I welcome that question, particularly since one might gather from the remarks of, for example, the hon. Member for Tavistock (Mr. Michael Heseltine) that this whole matter was something to be decided between a few chosen hon. Gentlemen opposite and the occupants of the Government Front Bench.
In other words, I am glad that we are dealing with the real issues that are raised by the Bill, and it is to those issues that I come immediately, especially in view of the remarks of the hon. Member for Sudbury and Woodbridge (Mr. Stainton).
We are particularly anxious to take over the smaller ports because of the possibility of them being used to transfer work away from the larger ports. This has already occurred to some extent, and it could lead, in the long run, to the misuse of resources in the process of rationalisation which all hon. Members recognise must take place in the docks industry.
Hon. Gentlemen opposite wish to preserve the largest possible private sector from nationalisation. If they had their way, the most profitable parts of the trade would be transferred to the smaller ports, with the result, first, that the position of the dockers in the nationalised ports would be undermined, and, secondly, it would enable those who argue that nationalisation is not efficient to make their case because the nationalised ports would have been left with the trade that is most difficult to carry on efficiently.
Let us look for a moment at what happened in the road transport industry, because in my opinion there is a very close parallel. When that industry was denationalised certain sectors of it were sold back to private enterprise and many of the least profitable sectors were left


in public hands; and many of us would argue that this has occurred right the way through the nationalised industries. Does the hon. Gentleman wish to interrupt me?

6.0 p.m.

Mr. Tilney: I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way. Surely business would be transferred to the non-nationalised ports only if those ports proved themselves to be more efficient. That is the only possible reason why the business should be transferred.

Mr. Newens: I do not at all agree with what the hon. Gentleman is saying, but it may well be that conditions for the workers in certain of the smaller ports could be inferior to those applying in nationalised ports, so that those could provide opportunities by way of cheaper facilities. That is one of the possibilities which exist. There are also operations which could be transferred which might be regarded as profitable to transfer to those areas, whereas other operations will still go to the nationalised ports.
In these circumstances, there is a very strong argument for taking the smaller ports into private ownership. Despite what has been said by the hon. Member for Tavistock about the attitude of dockers, there is no question in my mind on this issue. The vast majority of them feel very strongly not merely that all ports over the 100,000 tons limit should be taken into public ownership but that the complete industry, with every single port in the country, should come under public control. While it is true that strikes were limited to certain areas that action was really a manifestation of the tremendous feeling which exists amongst dockers as a whole, which in these areas boiled over.
I hope that if the Government are not prepared to accept the Amendment they will still recognise the very strong feeling which exists on this matter, and will recognise also that the Opposition certainly have not a monopoly in criticism of this Bill. There are some of us who criticise it because it does not go far enough.
I hope that if this Amendment is not accepted the Government will be prepared to give us some undertakings on this issue. The hon. Member for Tavistock has made it quite clear that

if the Conservatives ever come into government they will never be prepared to use Clause 29 to extend the scope of the nationalised industry. This means that, whatever happens, these ports are outside the scope of the Bill; and it is incumbent upon us in this House at the present time to make the possibility of Conservative damage to the nationalised ports industry at a later stage much more difficult than otherwise it would be. I feel very strongly that this Bill is a good one. I believe that it is welcomed by a majority of the people concerned, the dockers and the public. In these circumstances, I believe the Government should be prepared to strengthen it in the way the Amendment suggests.

Mr. Stainton: I come from Sudbury and Woodbridge, a constituency which, generally speaking, has a rural connotation. Hence, I understand the reaction earlier of the hon. Member for Salford. West (Mr. Orme) when I made certain exclamations in connection with the docks. It so happens that the dock at Felixstowe lies within my constituency. It now exceeds a volume of 2 million tons. Therefore, I am intimately interested and concerned in this Amendment. The container tonnage that will move through Felixstowe dock this year will exceed that of Rotterdam. That is a very remarkable achievement for a dock that was rescued only 10 years ago from being completely silted up.
If any hon. Member questions the virility of private enterprise in this respect and the benefits to the dock workers there, I repeat the invitation given by my next-door neighbour, the hon. Member for Harwich (Mr. Ridsdale): please come down and visit Orwell Estuary ports with the two of us. I am sure various hon. Gentlemen will learn a great deal.

Mr. Heffer: If the hon. Gentleman is serious about that, we shall be quite happy to take him up on it.

Mr. Stainton: I am never less than serious when speaking in this Chamber, and I will leave the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) to pursue that.
The first of the points I wish to make is perhaps the middle of the road point—which, again, is not a happy connotation. The Bill would give the Government, or


the new nationalised authority, 90 per cent. of the tonnage that moves through the ports and 90 per cent. of registered dock workers. I suggest, therefore, that it would be the height of administrative folly to increase the administrative duties of the National Ports Council, or whatever the authority is to be called, by this extra 10 per cent., which would bring in its train an utterly disproportionate amount of work and involvement.
We had a most excellent illustration of the argument I am now putting forward only a fortnight ago when the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer opened his Budget. One of his proposals, perhaps striking to the other side of the House, was to unleash from surtax quite a number of lower liability surtax payers. This was on his demonstration that by doing so the administrative saving would far exceed the revenue that was released thereby. It is of this type of argument that I would hope the Minister will be particularly conscious when he replies to the debate. The extra 10 per cent., ignoring whether the 90 per cent. is right or not, just is not worth a candle.
Coming now to the more specific arguments employed here today, I congratulate those resolute and doughty representatives of the dockers in the places which they represent in this House —the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton, the hon. Member for Salford, West, the hon. Member for Bristol, North-West (Mr. Ellis) and the hon. Member for Barking (Mr. Driberg). They do not, however, represent the dockers who are employed at Felixstowe Dock, nor, I would hazard also, those in the Ipswich Dock Commission, in the area which my constituency surrounds. Nor do they represent those at Harwich or in any of the estuary ports.
I would like to place it on record that I have not had one single representation from labour organisations or individual workers in any of these docks, and particularly that in my constituency, one way or another regarding this Bill. I am sure this is not because the local organiser of the Transport and General Workers Union does not know where I live. He and I have been in touch with each other on many occasions, mostly to our mutual advantage or to the advantage of a member of that union. But there has been

absolutely no representation to me to exert myself on behalf of my local dock in the way that these supposed representatives of dockers are addressing themselves to the Chamber this afternoon.

Mr. Driberg: I am much obliged to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. Surely he will realise that the representative of the Transport and General Workers Union or dockers in his constituency, even though they may agree with us privately, would know that it would be hopeless to try to press that view on the hon. Gentleman since, quite rightly, like all other Members of this House, he makes up his own mind and his views will be well known to his constituents.

Mr. Stainton: All I can say about that is that they and other unions have not been backward in coming forward on a number of parallel issues in the past. Whether I have ultimately agreed with them or not, they have made their submissions.

Dr. Winstanley: Will the hon. Gentleman remind the House that the hon. Member for Salford, West (Mr. Orme) said that he had been flooded with representations from shareholders and directors of the Manchester Ship Canal Company?

Mr. Stainton: That puts it all in context. I must move to my next point, though I should be only too happy to discuss this at still greater length. I repeat that I have received no representations from labour, organised, unorganised, individual or collective in my constituency.
I turn now to the point made with some emphasis by the hon. Member for Bristol, North-West, that workers in the docks which will not be nationalised will somehow be left out of some kind of benefits. This was discussed at considerable length in Committee. I suggested then—I quoted a number of figures—that remuneration and conditions of employment in the dock in my constituency are head of the list, and I am open to challenge on that. If the hon. Members for Barking, Bristol, North-West, Salford, West or Walton wish to challenge that assertion, I invite them to do so, but I stick to my guns, and I refer them to the details which I gave in Committee.
I deal next with the intriguing point adumbrated in part by the hon. Member for Salford, West. When I intervened, he rather back-tracked. He said " There is a danger of large developments in what are left out of the nationalisation net." That poses the suggestion that there is necessarily greater virility amongst these private enterprise ports which will be left out. Many hon. Gentlemen opposite are shaking their heads in disagreement. There are other motives why traffic may move to them, and I should like to deal with these.

Mr. Orme: When I talk about lucrative trade, I mean that there is a lucrative trade in containerisation, and so on, which will go to the private sector, but which we believe ought to be in the public sector.

Mr. Stainton: Traffic in Polish bacon is not very lucrative, nor very clean. Polish bacon would not be entering this country now were it not received at Ipswich docks. It was thrown out by the London dockers three or four months ago, and it had to be rerouted to Ipswich. I leave it to the hon. Gentleman to tell his story and so embellish my point.
There is another side to the coin of traffic moving from nationalised ports to non-nationalised ports. Obviously, traffic will move not just for the hell of it—I hope that that is a reasonably parliamentary expression—but only if there is a direct incentive to move. One would like to think that if we are to have a National Ports Council it will be successful and exert itself. I hope and pray that it will, otherwise we are setting out on a most forlorn exercise.
What the owners of these private ports are concerned about is something which no hon. Gentleman opposite has recognised, nor, I think, would dare to recognise, because the argument goes the other way. They are concerned about the possibilities of cross-subsidisation between the nationalised ports. There is nothing in the Bill, nor in the format of its organisaton structure, nor in the format of the accounts to be presented, which will enable any hon. Member to make any intelligent appreciation of the existence of cross-subsidisation between nationalised ports and harbours. Let us put that into the other side of the scale

when hon. Gentlemen opposite inveigh against the possibility of traffic moving from a nationalised port to a non-nationalised one.
The hon. Member for Walton talked about the need for national planning and organised development. I am sure that anyone who has studied the Report of the Rochdale Committee, and who has even a nodding acquaintance with transport throughout the country, be it by road, rail, or sea, knows that the systems are intimately connected. I am sure that no reasonable or intelligent person would wish to suggest that there should not be co-ordination between these various means of transport. I put it to the House that such co-ordination and national planning has existed ever since the Harbours Act of 1964, a Conservative Measure.
There were various exchanges in Committee—I am sure that the Minister remembers them rather vividly—because some hon. Members wished to raise the figure which requires submission to the Treasury. I think that that is the context in which we were discussing the matter. The Minister said that not only must he continue to watch the purse strings, but that national co-ordination must continue. This powerful and potent co-ordination through the whole apparatus of the Harbours Act will, I understand, continue in these private port enterprises.
Those are five powerful arguments for resisting the Amendment. I hope that the Minister will find not only his eloquence but his integrity and will resist the Amendment tonight, as he did in Committee.

Several Hon. Membersrose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I remind the House that I have appealed for brief debates.

6.15 p.m.

Mr. Mulley: I hope that the House will shortly come to a decision on what I am sure we all agree is an important Amendment. I think it is generally accepted that my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) and other of my hon. Friends have spoken in extremely reasonable and moderate tones. Their views reflect what I think is known by all those who have had direct contact with the dockers.
Throughout the considerable period of discussion on the Bill, and, indeed, during the years preceding it, there has been a lot of talk about the size of the ports to be taken over. Some people have suggested that all the ports should be taken over, which would mean taking over about 300. Others have suggested that ports with a tonnage of 100,000 tons should be taken over. Figures of 2 million tons, 3 million tons, 5 million tons, and 10 million tons have been suggested.
The Government's decision to confine the take-over to ports of more than 5 million tons was taken not only after a great deal of consideration but after a great deal of consultation with all those concerned on both sides of the industry. My hon. Friend the Member for Walton referred to the original White Paper. The decision to take over these ports was confirmed by my predecessor in the White Paper issued more than a year ago, and naturally, I accepted the reasons which led him to take that decision, otherwise I should not have sponsored the Bill.
I do not think that anyone can disguise the magnitude of the task that will fall on the new authority to put right the unsatisfactory situation in our major ports, whether one looks at them in terms of their finances, their industrial relations, their efficiency, or their ability to compete and to provide the country with what it needs—an efficient service for goods going out of and coming into the country. The figure of 5 million tons has the great advantage there are no ports which are just a little above or a little below that figure. There is no port with a tonnage of between 3 million and 7 million. Thus, the figure of 5 million is in an area of its own, and divides the major ports from the smaller ones.
In addition to the ports to be taken over under the 5 million ton criterion—the major ports—also in the National Ports Authority will be all the existing nationalised ports that are under the British Transport Docks Board. Some of those, like Hull and Southampton, are large; there are others that are quite small; clearly, it would have been wrong to de-nationalise any of those on a size criterion.
What we are doing is to take the major ports in terms of dock workers. Some 95

per cent. of registered dock workers work in the ports that will be part of the N.P.A., and on the latest figures the N.P.A. ports will do almost 90 per cent. of our total trade. So it is a very major undertaking indeed, and before the industry can hope to become efficient and viable a great deal has to be done in the setting up of the port boards, and probably, I would imagine, in the way of substantial reorganisation in the management field.
So a great deal has to be done, and to add, as this Amendment would, some 40 additional ports would not help. It would more than double the number of the ports to be considered. But, in terms of the additional number of dock workers, I am advised it would only be 1,790, another 3¾ per cent. of the total registered dock force, and in terms of trade it would be less than 10 per cent. additional trade that would be brought in.
In terms of the practicality of trying to get the ports working properly I think it would be unwise to accept this Amendment. My hon. Friend the Member for Walton and several others of my hon. Friends—including the hon. Member for Bristol, North-West (Mr. Ellis), who made the kind of constructive speech that we have become used to hearing him make in Committee—have all made the point that Clause 29 of the Bill—this was a point my hon. Friend the Member for Salford, West (Mr. Orme) made with great force—provides the fear that exists. I know, because I was meeting dockers only this morning. I have had many talks at different levels with the representatives of the dockers and the dockers themselves.
There is a concern that in some way they may be at a disadvantage. Clause 29 provides for the National Ports Authority to apply to Parliament, and, of course, a parliamentary procedure will be necessary before additional harbours can be brought within the N.P.A. The authority is allowed to do it with a view to furthering the efficient and economical operation or development of the system of harbours in Great Britain. This meets the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Salford, West about the feeling that there would be a development of smaller ports to the detriment of larger ports.

Mr. Geoffrey Wilson: If the Minister is implementing Clause 29, does Clause 24 apply? In other words, would he implement Clause 29 on a one-industry port basis? Clause 24 is the one which defines a port used exclusively or mainly for a particular industry.

Mr. Mulley: I think I am right in saying that in Clause 29(1)(a) the taking over of harbours covered by Clause 24 is excluded. If the hon. Member will look at Clause 29 he will see that point is covered.
The purpose is to ensure that the industry will become efficient. I make no bones about the fact that I happen to believe in public ownership—not as an end in itself, not because I think it is a good thing that there is a national flag outside, but because I think it is going to work; and because I believe it is going to work I do not fear that the nationalised ports will be at a disadvantage.
I look forward to our getting the industrial relations right. Believe me, there are no dockers in the world who can move cargo like British dockers when they have a mind to get on with the job. I hope so to organise things —this perhaps is why I shall be criticised later on—as to bring workers into management and get worker participation throughout the organisation. I believe this will work. That is why I have presented the Bill. I understand the fears. Frankly. I do not think they are well founded. That is why it is not necessary to extend, as my hon. Friends would like.
My hon. Friend the Member for Walton asked whether another type of Minister might be here. No Minister is every very certain how long he might hold any office, or certainly a particular office. I know that my hon. Friend was only putting the matter in a hypothetical context, but I could not agree with him that there was a prospect that there might be another Minister of another political complexion responsible for this industry. It seems to me that is not a probable contingency.
I would say, not only to the House but to people outside, that if we want this industry to be run efficiently, if we want it to come under public ownership, at the next election they must ensure

that this party is returned, because the party opposite will do nothing either for the ports or for the workers in them. That is beyond question. I make it clear to both the Conservative and the Liberal spokesmen that it is all very well to criticise what is in the Bill—I am prepared to admit it is not perfect but I know of no one who knows anything about the ports who wants things to stay as they are. Therefore, the onus is on the other parties to say what they will do if things go wrong and we are no longer in office.

Mr. Michael Heseltine: The Minister is fully aware that all we are saying is that if one looks around the world one sees that other countries have found far better ways of running ports than the Bill we have before us. This Bill is without precedent, and this is one of the reasons why it is so bad.

Mr. Speaker: Order. We are discussing a particular Amendment, not the whole Bill.

Mr. Mulley: Every time I recommended in Committee that we should follow a precedent I was told that was not a good reason for putting my proposal forward. I am afraid that that argument applies in the large as it does in the small. I ask my hon. Friends not to press the Amendment. I give them the assurance not only that I believe in public ownership but that I am going to do all I can to see that it works.

Mr. Edward M. Taylor: We certainly applaud the Minister's sturdy rejection of this Amendment. I wish that he had done so a little more enthusiastically. He said that there were two reasons why he did not want to accept the arguments put forward by his hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer)—first, that it would have involved more difficulties, and, second, that it could be done anyway. These arguments are not very enthusiastic, but we are glad that he has decided to reject the Amendment, and I hope that this is the last we will see of it.
During this debate various points of view have been expressed. First of all, the hon. Member for Bootle (Mr. Simon Mahon), in his own unique way, put forward his blind faith in nationalisation, as if more and more would in itself sort


out labour troubles. Unfortunately, the evidence of other industries does not back this up. The hon. Member for Barking (Mr. Driberg) went further and suggested that this was the beginning of almost a Red revolution in which we would be liberating dockers from a tyranny of private avarice. The middle-of-the-road view was expressed by the hon. Member for Cheadle (Dr. Winstanley).
One thing which stands out a mile is that no valid argument has been put forward for the Amendment which would be of any benefit whatsoever to the country. We are not thinking, by and large, about whether this will please the Transport and General Workers Union. We are talking about a great industry, on which certainly our exports depend immensely. What we are interested in is whether the hon. Member for Walton and his hon. Friends are simply saying this to placate the Transport and General Workers Union, and please those outside who want to see these kind of things, or whether he is putting this forward as a real argument. Does he mean this, or is it just being said? We will watch with great interest, after this long and protracted debate, to see whether the hon. Member for Walton means business, or whether he and his hon. Friends just want these things on the record to please the people who come to the House in demonstrations.

6.30 p.m.

There has been no argument of any substance. The most interesting one was that the nationalisation of more and more ports was necessary so that ports with 100,000 tons of cargo did not threaten the public sector. The word " threat " was used again and again. My hon. Friend the Member for Sudbury and Woodbridge (Mr. Stainton) was right to realise that this was the key argument. Is this why the hon. Member for Walton wants them taken over—because the more efficient smaller ports could pinch trade from the National Ports Authority? He wants the N.P.A. to have no competition. This was the principal argument—that Blyth, Ipswich, Felixstowe and other small ports could be a real threat to the N.P.A.—

Mr. Peter Mahon: There are small ports like Preston, municipal ports subsidised by the rates.

There was an eight-weeks' strike at Preston last year, and it is experiencing great difficulty in carrying on in the right way.

Mr. Taylor: I respect the hon. Gentleman's opinion, as always. In some of the publicly-owned docks, like London and Liverpool, he will see problems much greater than the ones in his own case.
What we want to know is whether the Amendment will sort out the situation. Will these problems be any better if the ports are owned by the N.P.A.? We want to know whether the hon. Members for Walton or Preston, South (Mr. Peter Mahon) or anyone else can say that the ports will be more efficient and that the labour relations will be better because of nationalisation.
We have not had one piece of evidence to prove this. All we have had was a fleeting reference by our old friend the hon. Member for Penistone (Mr. John Mendelson), who quoted the example of the steel industry. But figures given in HANSARD for 16th March show that ever since nationalisation the number of hours lost through strikes in the steel industry has increased.

Mr. John Mendelson: I merely interrupted the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. J. H. Osborn) because he was talking about those who will use the ports and alleged that they would be worse off. I quoted the Steel Users Association as being in favour of the recent increase in the price of steel and said that they were well satisfied with the industry's position.

Mr. Taylor: We cannot go into this in detail, but several hon. Members opposite said that nationalisation would improve labour relations—and there is not a shred of evidence for this.
The third argument was that if we took over the small ports, we would for once have a national plan. We might think back to the last National Plan, brought forward by the former Secretary of State for Economic Affairs, who has been thrown into the wastepaper basket with his plan. Surely, before putting forward this Amendment, the hon. Member for Walton read the Harbours Act of 1964. There is control now: no one can plan expansions of harbours without the permission of the Ports Council. This


Bill will transfer that power to the Minister. National planning exists, and there is nothing a small port can do up to £500,000 which can make any difference. Planning is there and will continue.
An additional argument was that, with nationalisation, the small ports would develop better. I would ask the hon. Member to consider industries which have been nationalised. The railways are starved of capital—

Mr. Speaker: Order. Again, we are discussing a specific Amendment.

Mr. Taylor: I would not think of going into this in detail, but the argument has been advanced. The hon. Member for Walton spent a great deal of time on the Amendment, holding back ours, and he has on obligation to put up a case. All I am trying to do is deal with the points made in support of it; I have tried to show that there was no argument at all. There is no evidence that nationalisation will bring more investment.
The hon. Member for Bootle put forward the most unusual argument that if we nationalised the small ports there was the danger that the unsavoury working conditions in the private ports would be used to undercut. It was said that if we had a public and private sector, the private could undercut the public by paying lower wages and offering fewer conditions—[Interruption.] That was certainly the impression I had. If this argument is advanced, as it was by the hon. Member for Epping (Mr. Newens), I would point out that it is dealt with in Clause 42, which lays down that the private sector is not allowed to claim—

Mr. Simon Mahon: This is the second time that hon. Members opposite have done this. I completely deny that I used the words which the hon. Member says I used. If he continues to say so, I can only think that it must have been two different fellows in another place altogether.

Mr. Taylor: I am sorry if I placed the wrong interpretation on the hon. Gentleman's words, but the hon. Member for Epping, whose words I listened to with great care, did put this argument. I was trying to pay a tribute to the hon. Member because he is here and his hon.

Friend is not. But the argument is dealt with in Clause 42.
There has been no valid case, economic, social or industrial for the Amendment. The ports are not just another State monopoly but a unique case. Electricity has competition from gas and some competition from coal. The airways to some extent face competition from the railways. The ports would be a real monopoly if they were under total State ownership. A private sector is the only check on the efficiency of nationalised ports. With the Amendment there would be no such guarantee that taxpayers' money was not being abused and that there was real competition.
The hon. Member has introduced a great deal of uncertainty by the Amendment because, he says, a future Minister might think differently about nationalisation. What clearer warning could there be to those who operate the private ports of a threat because of the powers in the Bill and the strong feeling which he says exists in the Labour Party? Do they really mean business and believe these arguments, or are they simply using the time of the House on a guillotine Motion so as to mouth words to please some people in a trade union or in their constituencies who have marched to the House of Commons?
I suggest that not one real case has been put for the Amendment. If we see, after this debate, that the hon. Member for Walton is not prepared to stand by his convictions all the way we shall know that a great deal of unnecessary concern has been caused in the private ports and that our time has been wasted.

Mr. Heffer: I do not want to comment on that speech at all. I just wanted to say that we heard from the Minister what I thought was a very important statement which was a clarification of the position and an emphasis that Clause 29 does give the opportunity to the National Ports Authority to extend public ownership if that is felt necessary by the authority. I think that this, emphasised and brought out in this way, makes it clear that many of the fears—

Mr. Edward M. Taylor: This is scandalous.

Mr. Heffer: You just mind your own business.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman will address his colleagues in the parliamentary way.

Mr. Heffer: I only hope that the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Edward M. Taylor) looks after his business and I will look after mine. I shall be the keeper of my conscience; let him be the keeper of his. I have nothing to be ashamed of in my convictions and my opinions or in the views that I and my hon. Friends hold.
In the circumstances, with the assurances that were given and spelt out by the Minister in a very clear way indicated the position, without creating any uncertainty in the industry but making it quite clear that there can be an extension of public ownership in future under Clause 29. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Mr. Michael Heseltine: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. We have been discussing Amendment No. 5 for two hours and forty minutes during which the Minister made a five-minute speech in which he repeated word for word what is clearly on the record of the Standing Committee. That means that more than one third of the total allotted time for 60 Amendments and 19 debates has now been wasted by the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heller) and he has not even the intention of carrying the Amendment to a Division.
Is there, Mr. Speaker, any parliamentary procedure whereby I am entitled to ask the Minister whether, as we have now been deprived of this quite unwarrantable amount of time, we can have additional time to make up the time lost in order to discuss other Amendments?

Mr. Speaker: Order, that is not a point of order for me. Is it your pleasure that the Amendment be withdrawn?

Hon. Members: No.

Amendment negatived.

Mr. Edward M. Taylor: I beg to move Amendment No. 6, in page 2, line 45, at end insert:
(8) Before making an order under subsection (7) above, the Minister shall arrange for public inquiries to be held in areas where substantial representations are made by local authorities or organisations representing workers or port

users to the effect that the consequences of the transfer of the ports concerned to the Authority could affect adversely the prosperity of the area in question, and he shall be under an obligation to consider the reports of any such public inquiries before making an order.
This is an Amendment which we on this side of the House are moving and which we believe in. We are certainly not paper tigers who will make arguments and then run away from the consequences We shall certainly not waste any time in that shameful way.
What we are proposing under the Amendment is that before making an order to take over any port the Minister shall arrange for a public inquiry to be held. I am not suggesting that this is in any way a wrecking Amendment which will provide opportunities for long, time-wasting public inquiries simply to delay nationalisation. I am suggesting that we should have public inquiries only in limited circumstances where certain cases can be put up by certain specifically named organisations or groups.
The public inquiry should be held in areas where
… substantial representations are made by local authorities or organisations representing port workers or port users to the effect that the consequences of the transfer of the ports concerned to the Authority could affect adversely the prosperity of the area in question,…".
The Amendment says that the Minister
 shall be under an obligation to consider the reports of any such public inquiries before making an order.
There was a temptation which we resisted. We could have proposed public inquiries when anyone objects to a port being taken over under nationalisation, but we have deliberately limited the terms of the Amendment. I hope that the Government will accept that this is a reasonable Amendment and if they cannot accept the precise wording at least will accept the principle.

6.45 p.m.

My only fear is that the Government may reject the Amendment, which they may know to be sound, simply because they want to indulge in a mad rush to have nationalisation completed before an election takes place. If this is their intention, they should have serious regard to the needs and the good of industry as a whole and indeed of the ports as a whole before coming to such a decision.

We are proposing that where a local authority or a trade union can put up a sound case that the prosperity of an area would be seriously affected by nationalisation there should be a public inquiry and that public inquiry should make a report to the Minister before he actually takes over the harbour. We cannot emphasise too much just how important a port is to the prosperity of a large area round about. I am thinking in particular of Bristol. The hon. Member for Bristol, North-West (Mr. Ellis) is sitting opposite. He may be aware that it is reliably estimated that one in four of the population of Bristol derive some benefit from the activities of the highly successful port of Bristol, which is municipally owned and under the Bill will be taken over, despite violent opposition from the people of Bristol and from those who are directly concerned with the operation of the harbour.

I suggest that if the people of Bristol, if the local authority and if some of the trade unions concerned, or indeed if the users concerned feel that nationalisation—

Mr. J. H. Osborn: My hon. Friend used the words " if the users concerned " and he has also used the words " port users ". Therefore does he mean industry which will want to use the port to bring the goods in for industry and export their products, or does he intend there to be a smaller definition?

Mr. Taylor: As far as I am aware, there is no definition in the Bill of a user. I am thinking of terms of those who make substantial use of the ports for their exports or ship-owners themselves. I should hope that both would be covered.
If such an organisation can put forward a case that the prosperity of the area would be seriously affected, there should be a public inquiry. What kind of matters could they be concerned about? One would be whether a nationalised authority would regard their own port as having any future, any real probable or growing future, under a nationalisation scheme. Certainly, we know in the case of Bristol that people there have good reason to doubt the views of the Government as to the future of the

port of Bristol when we have had the tragedy of the Portbury scheme. There are many people who would perhaps want to put Bristol into a straitjacket at all costs. There is also the real danger that one might have, if a port board were to be established covering perhaps the whole of the estuary, some loss-making ports on one side brought in with one port making a substantial profit on the other side.
These are matters which could be discussed by a public inquiry. I am not just thinking of Bristol, because there are other circumstances which could arise elsewhere. The other most obvious example is Milford Haven, which is certainly quite unique and apart from all the general cargo handling ports. The situation there is that the Conservancy Board, consisting of voluntary people and employing about 50 persons, is to be taken over under nationalisation in an area of great beauty in a national park. Obviously, that board and others in the area will be concerned about the port and the board being taken over.
In Scotland, we have a great deal of interest in the unique national asset we possess in the deep water facilities on the Clyde. There is widespread fear in Scotland that, because so many Government Departments are involved, and because of decisions being delayed because of ports nationalisation, the great opportunities afforded by that asset will be lost. But if there were an opportunity for the users of the facilities or the local authorities on Clydeside to get an inquiry held before nationalisation, they might be able to get some kind of assurance that their interests would not be neglected.
There has been difficulty in finding some form of words which would cope with this situation. One only has to look around the country to realise the vital significance of each of these ports for the prosperity of its area. For example, there is the case of Manchester and the contribution which the Ship Canal has made towards new industry and services to that area. Then there are the cases of Bristol and Milford Haven and the Clyde. Before any step is taken to nationalise a port and centralise the facilities, there should be opportunity for inquiry for the cases to be put for and against nationalisation. This is a very


important Amendment and I hope that the Government will give it serious consideration and at least accept the principle.

Mr. Ridsdale: I support the excellent views of my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Edward M. Taylor). I do so because, in our debate on Amendment No. 5, the Minister held what was almost a sword of Damocles over the heads of all our ports when he talked about Clause 29 and the further nationalisation which could take place under it. I tried to put myself in the position of one of these ports which would be under threat of nationalisation. There is a great deal of uncertainty already in such ports and the opportunity for a public inquiry would be a further safeguard. The right hon. Gentleman said that certain parliamentary procedures would have to take place before further nationalisation was undertaken, but there should be the further safeguard of a public inquiry before nationalisation came about. Realising how the people of Bristol, Milford Haven, Manchester and all the other ports which are to be nationalised feel, I know that they would welcome a public inquiry. I support the Amendment so ably moved by my hon. Friend.

Mr. Ronald Atkins: This is obviously a wrecking Amendment, and I think that the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Edward M. Taylor) realises that only too clearly. One would assume from what he said that there has been no discussion of this matter so far, but the debate on nationalisation has been going on for years. Not only are we all aware of what the local authorities think in the cases he referred to, but also of what the workers think. Indeed, he himself has already referred to the unanimous feeling among dock employees in favour of ports nationalisation.
The hon. Gentleman's attitude is all the more peculiar in demanding so much inquiry when one remembers his attitude over U.C.S. Ltd. He would barely have allowed my right hon. Friend the Minister of Technology to go to Glasgow to consider the proposals for public money to be injected into private industry there. He was demanding that the money should be given immediately and

without any further consideration. He made no demand then for an enquiry, public or private. He was all of a rush. I hope that we reject this obviously wrecking Amendment, which should be treated with the disgust that it deserves.

Dame Irene Ward: I want to add my support for the Amendment which is of great importance to the port of Tyne. For a long time, it has been clear to all of us concerned with the port of Tyne that it is being run down while the port of Tees is being built up. I am not arguing against the port of Tees. The people on Tees-side naturally want to do what they can, and good luck to them, to build up a strong port with a good future to help them earn a good living on Tees-side. But coming as I do from Tyneside. I think it is imperative that the position of the port of Tyne should be known and recognised.
I can see no way of ensuring that the country as a whole knows about the port of Tyne unless we have an extensive enquiry into the problems arising there. I listened with great interest earlier to three hon. Members who represent Tyneside constituencies making strong representations about what is happening on Tyneside. If we could have a proper enquiry, we might be able to persuade the Government of the day—whether this one, which heaven forbid, or a Conservative Government—to look into the interests of the Tyne.
The use of the Tyne by shipping has declined tremendously. We have had to close down some of the hostels which used to house seamen coming into the Tyne. Our unemployment is rising by leaps and bounds. The terrible decision has just been taken to close down Palmer's ship-repairing yard. Our situation requires and deserves a first class enquiry.
I am against the nationalisation of the ports and therefore the whole Bill. At the same time. I would welcome a first class inquiry into the situation to give all the interests concerned an opportunity of co-ordinating their case so that the attention of the Government of the day can be directed towards the future of the Tyne. So far as it is within my power to do so, I shall argue in favour of a full-scale inquiry. I shall vote against the Bill, but I would like to hear from


the right hon. Gentleman what he has in view if he rejects the Amendment, as I hope he will not. If the Amendment is rejected, we should be told what the Government intend to do to ensure that urgent consideration is given to our problems.

7.0 p.m.

All sorts of difficulties arise on Tyneside. For example, we are short of land and the various nationalised industries which are concerned with giving employment to the port of Tyne operate so slowly that nothing seems to emerge from their consideration of issues. I am not saying that they are not interested or do not appreciate the position. The trouble is that we do not get any action from them.

When I listen to the speeches of hon. Gentlemen opposite on this matter I wonder whether those who are so keen on nationalisation really believe that the mining community on Tyneside, and those who live adjacent to other ports which have mining interests, believe that their salvation lies in nationalisation. [Interruption] I wish that hon. Gentlemen opposite would be a little more quiet and would for once listen to what they are being told.

If hon. Gentlemen opposite came from my part of the world they would know just how bad the situation is. I cannot see how we will benefit one iota from the nationalisation of our port. My hon. Friends and I are focusing attention on these problems in an effort to stir up some humane consideration for the plight and decline which we on Tyneside face. Something must be done to make our future more certain and more happy.

The Government have their desires stabilised in the concept of nationalisation. They are irritated when I speak for the people who live on Tyneside. Fortunately, I have managed to survive in this House for 34 years, so that hon. Gentlemen opposite may be assured that I know a little of what the Tynesiders want. Even at the last election, when my majority was reduced, there were members of the Left wing of the Labour Party who voted for me rather than for the Labour candidate.

Hon. Gentlemen opposite always think that they are so clever that they can

interpret people's views. Bat sometimes there is so much victimisation, agitation and unpleasantness that the ordinary workers will not for a moment tell their trade unionists, shop stewards and others what they really believe about the party for which they are supposed to work.

It is fortuitous that my hon. Friends have moved an Amendment which indicates what is in people's minds about the future of the port of Tyne and other ports. I know what people are thinking now. When it was announced that Palmer's shipyard would be closed down people's thoughts went back to the horrors of 1931 and to what happened at Jarrow and Hebburn. I represented Walls-end for about 14 years. In part of that constituency at that time about 84 per cent. of the employable population was unemployed. I do not relish with any freat certainty the future of Tyneside with the present Government in power.

I hope that the Minister will give consideration to the anxiety which is being expressed now on Tyneside and elsewhere over this matter. I refer to those who support not only my party but the Labour Party—not forgetting the middle-of-the-road side of the House, though the middle of any road is not much good in present circumstances—because they all demand that action be taken now.

We want our people to be happy, or at least happier. We might even get some of the £7 million that was given to the Clyde to help us on our way. There will be a lot of happy hearts on Tyneside if the Amendment is accepted. Whatever hon. Gentlemen opposite think, the people of Tyneside do not contemplate with pleasure their future under a Labour Administration.

Several Hon. Membersrose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I remind the House that we are under the Guillotine. I have appealed, so far successfully, for brief speeches. I make that appeal again. Mr. Ellis.

Mr. Ellis: I will obey your appeal, Mr. Speaker, and be brief.
I hope that the hon. Lady the Member for Tynemouth (Dame Irene Ward) will forgive me if I do not follow her into the by-ways of Palmer's shipyard. I would find it difficult to remain in order


in so doing. In view of the hon. Lady's remarks about the difficulties being experienced on Tyneside, I do not know for certain what she wants the Government to do. Does she want us to nationalise the lot?
Reference has been made to Bristol, and that leads me to intervene. The Amendment would ensure that public inquiries took place before the Bill is enacted. I must be critical of the hon. Member for Tavistock (Mr. Michael Heseltine) and the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Edward M. Taylor), because in recent times the Tory-controlled City Council of Bristol has been busy co-ordinating its policies. There has been much to-ing and fro-ing in the area. Indeed, the hon. Member for Tavistock has even been to my constituency where, I am told, he got a bit of a rough ride.
I received representations from Bristol City Council, but there was no mention of hon. Gentlemen opposite seeking public inquiries in the way requested by the Amendment. Nothing of that kind was mentioned in the missive which I received. If the hon. Member for Tavistock be-lives that the Amendment would be to the advantage of Bristol, then I assure him that the Citizen Party there—they call themselves that, but they are really just Tories—has not co-ordinated its policy because I have not been so instructed in the missive I received.
The only missive I received from the Tory-controlled council pointed out—the hon. Gentleman got this point over—that they opposed the Bill, that they were not in favour of the nationalisation of the Port of Bristol and urged that the pre-emption Clause should be extended. We did something about that in Committee. They also raised with me—I found this a rather wry one—the point that if there was to be a set-up in connection with nationalisation and appointments made as a result of the Bill, their nominees should be appointed. In other words, they were telling me that if there were some jobs going, they wanted them.
I thought this a bit thick in view of the vociferous indignation that they had vouchsafed about the Bill. For this reason I ask my right hon. Friend if he had received any representations from Bristol in connection with appointments to be made under the Bill, and if he had

received any nominations from Bristol for such appointments. Today I received a reply from the Minister saying that he had received no such representations from the City of Bristol.
In other words, they wrote to me not to ask for a public inquiry to be held into this matter, but on the other aspect to which I have referred. Presumably they were too shy to do it themselves. Perhaps it would have put them in an embarrassing position. I hope that they will now come across because it is no good asking my hon. Friends and me to see that Bristol representatives are selected, so that they may get any jobs that are going, unless they are prepared to come forward with nominations. I wish to make it clear to the hon. Member for Tavistock that I have received no representations from them urging that in Bristol there should be tribunals of the sort proposed in the Amendment. I have given some indication of the representations we have had and I have made some comments on them.

Mr. Geoffrey Wilson: The hon. Member has misread the Amendment. It is asking for an inquiry only if the authority says that the prosperity of the area will be threatened by the Bill. The representations would not be to ask for an inquiry but to say that the Bill was a bad one and would adversely affect Bristol.

Mr. Ellis: I took it that the contention was that there should be inquiries. Certainly the hon. Lady wanted an inquiry with reference to the port of Tyne. I have not been approached for an inquiry and I do not think my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, South (Mr. Wilkins) has been approached. If there is a difference in what the Amendment seeks, I assure the hon. Member for Truro (Mr. Geoffrey Wilson) that I have not been approached in that way either.

Mr. Ray Mawby: The hon. Member for Bristol, North-West (Mr. Ellis) was a little unfair when he said that presumably the Bristol Council appeared to be taking two different stands. Many people take two different stands when a Bill of this sort comes forward. First, they either agree or disagree with the principle. If they disagree with it they take steps to make certain


that that is known. Secondly, if it is known that they will be overruled they have the right to say that in those circumstances they should have the right to representation on any governing board. I have heard this put in a shorter way in the phrase, " If you can't beat 'em join 'em ". This is a proper attitude for any elected body to take. First, it takes the view that the basic legislation is good or bad, and, secondly, if overruled, it contends that it should have a right to representation.

Mr. Ellis: If that is the analysis, the council was a little shy of taking up a stand on principle and now it is shy about coming forward and giving names.

Mr. Mawby: Obviously the hon. Member knows Bristol better than I do. Therefore, I cannot indulge in argument on that, but one should point out the fairness of the situation.
The hon. Member for Preston, North (Mr. Ronald Atkins) was very certain that this was a wrecking Amendment. He said it as if he believed it, but, obviously, he had not read either the Clause or the Amendment. Clause I lays down the basis for bringing a port under the National Ports Authority. Once that Clause has been passed unamended, the Minister's hands will have been tied. In vesting he will be able to make very few decisions.
The Clause lays down clearly in subsection (3):
 On and after the vesting date there shall be placed under the charge of the National Ports Authority—

(a) all harbours which at the passing of this Act are owned or managed by the British Transport Docks Board."
Under subsection (3)(b) it is laid down
 all harbours in Great Britain at which in any period of twelve months beginning with 1st July, 1966 or with any subsequent day not later than 1st July, 1967 the aggregate quantity of the goods loaded in ships and goods unloaded from ships exceeded five million tons ".
If this Clause is passed unamended, on vesting day any port which has handled more than that aggregate of tonnage will automatically become part of the N.P.A. Then the Minister can do nothing about it whatever representations are made to him.

7.15 p.m.

The hon. Member also suggested that public inquiries would have to be held all over the country if this Amendment were passed. The Amendment does not say that. It says that before the Minister makes an Order for vesting, he
 shall arrange for public inquiries to be held in areas where substantial representations are made by local authorities or organisations representing workers or port users to the effect that the consequences of transfer of the ports concerned to the Authority could affect adversely the prosperity of the area in question ".

They cannot just object; they have to show evidence that as a consequence of the transfer the prosperity of the area in question could be adversely affected. If this is not inserted, the Minister will have no power to take account of what could be very solid representation.

The hon. Member was very certain and said that we all know that the workers want nationalisation. A little earlier today there was a lot of evidence to show that that is not so. Representations made in Committee were all from ports which are already nationalised. They did not come from the ports which will be brought within the ambit of the new N.P.A.

However certain the hon. Member is, I am certain on this point. Surely it would be wrong to preclude the right of an organisation or organisations representing employees in a particular area from putting forward a point of view when they believe that the action would adversely damage the prosperity of the area in question. If the hon. Member is right and all the workers are hell-bent on the ports becoming nationalised there will be no representations from workers' organisations. In those circumstances the Minister would not have to apply the terms of this Amendment, but there should at least be the opportunity.

The second group, port users, cannot be ignored. The Minister and those who drafted the Bill have tended to treat these as the least important persons to be considered, yet they are the most important. My hon. Friend the Member for Tyne-mouth (Dame Irene Ward) showed graphically what can happen when port users do not make full use of a port and when certain changes take place. I know nothing about Tynemouth, but my hon. Friend gave an example of what can


happen to what is perhaps at present a prosperous area when, because of nationalisation, the port users seek some other way in which to transport their goods out and raw materials into the country.

Earlier hon. Members opposite suggested that a very good way of dealing with this problem was to nationalise all ports. Then no one would have any choice and the port user could not choose between different forms of transport. We do not take that view. Neither does the Minister, judging from his reply. He obviously believes that there is room for private enterprise in the dock industry. Any dock which handles an aggregate of less than the 5 million tons will be outside.

It may well be that those who use and live near a port may believe that nationalisation will damage their area. We have only to take the inhabitants of Manchester as an example. They could be adversely affected by Manchester and Liverpool coming under a central authority if it was then decided that more business would be done in the Liverpool docks, thus reducing the use of the Manchester docks. This would be a legitimate matter for those concerned to make representations to the Minister about.

They would have to make their case. Before they got to the hurdle of a public inquiry, they would have to satisfy the Minister that their representations were " substantial ". It would not be a case of the Minister receiving a letter from a manufacturer saying that he used Bristol docks, Manchester docks or whatever the case might be, and that in his opinion action taken under the Bill would adversely affect the interests of the area as a whole. The Minister would say, that that was just a single representation and throw it out. But if a body of port users put forward that point he would rightly have to say that their views must be considered and that they must be given an opportunity to prove their case.

Unless the Amendment is accepted, the Minister has his hands tied. He must by Statutory Instrument name a vesting day and then, whatever he may feel at the time and whatever representations have been made to him, under subsection (3)(a) and (b) and the various docks automatically either stay outside the N.P.A.,

because they deal with too little traffic, or they come within it.

That is too sweeping a change to make. We have been discussing the Bill in the House and in Committee for a long time. We all have the impression that we know something about the dock industry. But, however expert any of us may be, we do not know exactly what will be the effect upon the area around a dock as a result of a major change in its management.

The Minister would be well advised, even if he does not accept the terms of the Amendment, at least to accept the principle, because it gives him a second chance. If he does not accept it, there is no more chance left, and he or his successor will be called upon just to carry out a rubber-stamp operation, and all that he will be able to decide is the vesting date.

Mr. Tilney: I am delighted to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Totnes (Mr. Mawby), who referred to the Manchester Ship Canal Company, which I shall mention a little later.
It is as well for the House to remember the resolution passed by the Mersey Docks and Harbour Board when the Bill was mooted. It said:
 The Mersey Docks and Harbour Board regret the Minister of Transport's proposals for ports reorganisation, which will end the Board's autonomy as a public trust port, believing that the efficiency of the port cannot be improved by merging the port into a regional and national organisation.
I see no reason for the board to have changed its mind since then.
It is very difficult for Liverpool, Manchester, or the towns along the Manchester Ship Canal to know what will happen. We have no details of any devolution scheme. We do not know how much autonomy will be given to the provinces. We very much regret that we are passing what is really only an enabling Bill without any of the details which will greatly affect the lives of many people for good or ill—and I suspect that in some cases it will be for ill.
We must also remember the fierce competition not only between the ports of this country but between our ports and those of Europe. Many shipowners do not have to come to Britain. They can perfectly well go to Rotterdam and have


their goods trans-shipped. It is very important that all the ports in this country should be as efficient as possible, and I do not believe that nationalisation spells efficiency.
We cannot nationalise businesses at a stroke of the pen. Seven or eight companies employing over 10,000 men on Merseyside may be integrated with the existing Mersey Docks and Harbour Board in one unit. This all takes a great deal of time, and it will affect many people. There is much to be said for them and the local authorities in the area, which are equally concerned, having a chance to state their point of view.
The most difficult problems facing our ports are finance and labour relations. The first could be dealt with without nationalisation, and there is nothing in the Bill that will make the unions control the wildcat strikes that we have had. Until we know all the powers the local boards are intended to have, it is very difficult to make a sensible decision about the Bill. That is all the more reason why local people should have a chance to put forward their point of view.
The oil and seed crushers on Merseyside wrote to me not long ago objecting to the prices they were being charged and pointing out that it was virtually as cheap to import through Avonmouth, then bringing their produce up to Merseyside, as it was to bring it direct into the port of Liverpool. How much more expensive it may be when the port is nationalised! Liverpool already, to my regret, is an expensive port.
I turn to the Manchester Ship Canal. Many people seem to think that Manchester is a single port, but it is not. There is the great Queen Elizabeth II dock, built for what were then considered to be large oil tankers. They now go to the oil terminal at Tranmere, and may in the future anchor out in Liverpool Bay. It was once thought that the Queen Elizabeth II dock would have no trade, but all sorts of ancillary trades have come to it.
From there we move up the canal to Ellesmere Port, which is a little port all on its own in Wirral; from there to the great oil port of Stanlow; then on to Runcorn and a series of little ports, at

present all controlled by the Manchester Ship Canal Company. So we move up to Salford, past other ports.
What is to prevent the National Ports Authority closing down some of those little ports, possibly because they happen to be more efficient, or even threaten trade in one of the major ports by their efficiency, just as the Coal Board has decided to close certain coalmines?
I hope that the Minister will comment on these proposals and will give us some idea whether we are to have an estuarial port for the whole of the Mersey or whether it is to be divided. That is all the more reason why we should have inquiries from the public and from local authorities.

7.30 p.m.

Dr. Winstanley: As my right hon. and hon. Friends and I will be supporting the Amendment, and as our thinking on these matters is not wholly identical with that of the Conservative Party, perhaps I should say why we support it.
We do not have the blind faith in the ability of private enterprise to administer everything effectively that the Conservative Party appears to have, nor do we believe, as do some hon. Gentlemen opposite, that nationalisation is automatically humane, receptive, sensitive, accountable, and so on. However, we accept that in many circumstances the proper way to administer a port is through public ownership.
We believe that it is right that there should be provision whereby the circumstances, methods, and so on, can be inquired into. Therefore, we shall support the Amendment. But we are not wholly happy about the precise details. I am not sure that the criteria laid down, namely, whether the proposal
 could affect adversely the prosperity of the area in question ".
should be the sole ground. We should also consider the rights of the people working in the ports, the way that they are run, and so on.
Although I have some doubts about the details, broadly speaking, I support the scheme. Whilst the formula may be too restrictive, it is an ideal solution for the kind of situation to which reference has been made by the hon. Member for Liverpool, Wavertree (Mr. Tilney);


namely, that of the Manchester Ship Canal Company, in which intense local patriotism is involved. I do not dispute that it may be necessary to administer the ports regionally in certain circumstances, but hon. Members will be wise not to ignore local needs and to realise that local patriotism of this kind ought to be effectively considered.

Mr. Orme: The hon. Gentleman talks about local patriotism, particularly concerning the Manchester Ship Canal Company. is he aware that many of the directors of that company have little, if any connection with the indu4try? I hope that with public ownership there will be more direct say by people involved in the industry.

Dr. Winstanley: I am in favour of people having a say in almost everything. I should like all the people involved to have an effective say. I agree there with the hon. Gentleman.
People in the Manchester area are intensely proud of the Manchester Ship Canal Company and of the contribution that it makes to the city. We could argue about how the business is run, whether it could be run better, or how it would fare under public ownership. But surely this is what a public inquiry is for—to enable these arguments to be canvassed and gone into publicly to ensure that local interests are effectively represented.
There is no doubt that there is a considerable degree of competition between Manchester and Liverpool as ports. Having said that there should be some regional integration, I think, nevertheless, that there are advantages in preserving separate organisations so that competition can continue. These fears and anxieties could be ventilated at a public inquiry which could go into the way that things are to be done. Will they be done in such a way that Manchester can operate separately from Liverpool so that competition can continue? Anxieties about the terms of the take-over could be ventilated. Anxieties about the position of employees and their degree of participation in management, control, and so on, could also be ventilated. These are matters which we consider could be gone into at a public inquiry. Merely allowing the Bill to go through in its present form without pro-

vision for something of this kind would be a mistake.
We support the Amendment, not because we wish a system of public inquiries to be used to frustrate any move towards nationalization—it is not our intention to support a purely capricious kind of negative measure—but because we believe that the provision of a public inquiry could be valuable in certain hypothetical cases and would be extremely valuable in the specific case of the Manchester Ship Canal Company.

Mr. J. H. Osborn: In Committee, at the second and third sittings, when we discussed Clause 1, I moved an Amendment relating to subsection (7). The one point that we did not elucidate and which did not come from the Parliamentary Secretary was how the procedure will operate under subsection (7).
I understand that an Order will be placed before the House which we may be able to pray against, if we so wish. I should appreciate confirmation that that will be so. It would be vital in that case for hon. Members to know the facts—not only the reason why we should pray against the Order, but also the Minister's reason for putting forward a Statutory Instrument recommending vesting dates to this effect.
The Clause has been well thought out, but one or two aspects that have arisen in the debate cause me to ask what the ultimate effect of political interventionism in this sphere will be.
The hon. Member for Bristol, North-West (Mr. Ellis), who has just left his seat, talked about discussions with the local authority in Bristol. I have a note that he also referred to the appointment which would come on the local estuarial port board, or whatever structure was set up by the Minister. My hon. Friend the Member for Totnes (Mr. Mawby) intervened and said: " If you can't beat 'em, join 'em."
This is the procedure of nationalisation. One difficulty is that those running and associated with the ports on the management side, when they realise that the axe is going to fall and that there will be a new employer, get to the stage of thinking, as my hon. Friend the Member for Totnes said, " If you can't heat 'em, join 'em.


This brings me to the interesting point about who the port users are—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must link what he has to say with the Amendment, which is about the need for public inquiries before vesting date.

Mr. Osborn: I am coming to who the port users are. The Amendment says
 the Minister shall arrange for public inquiries to be held in areas where substantial representations are made by local authorities or organisations representing workers or port users ".
I am now coming to the people who can make representations at an inquiry. I cannot over-emphasise the importance of those who are working in the industry and who live in the local areas. As my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Wavertree (Mr. Tilney) said, if as the result of this Measure Liverpool and Manchester are brought together, the future employment of many people will be at stake, and they should have an opportunity of making representations to a public inquiry.
The health of our ports affects everybody. Ultimately, every man, woman and child in this country is a port user. It is difficult to see how their views can he represented in a public inquiry. If the cost of importing food goes up because of high wages and low productivity or inefficiency in the docks, for whatever reason, the housewife will have to pay more for her food. If the cost of bringing grain to this country rises, or if the cost of handling delicate tropical foodstuffs and fruits increases, the housewife will have to pay. The housewife is affected by the very process of nationalising the docks. Every wage-earner is affected by the efficiency with which raw material is brought into our factories; so are the products of our factories which are sent overseas.
There has been considerable discussion about the steel industry being a user of the ports. My hon. Friend the Member for Tynemouth (Dame Irene Ward) has reminded me that the steel industry is making a decision about ore carriers and the ore terminal being switched from the Tyne to the Tees. Not only the interests of users but the interests of the people in the locality are affected. The port

users are those whose livelihood depends on the efficient import of goods and raw materials and the efficient export of finished manufactured products.
Port users include not only the warehouse men, those who handle goods in the ports, those who store them, the stevedoring companies and the shipping companies, but industry as a whole. Every aspect of our life is affected, and all those concerned will have to be satisfied that the process of vesting the industry will improve rather than hold back the service that British industry can give to the community and the ease with which British industry can export its goods overseas.
The House of Commons will be able to pray against the decision reached by the Minister and query the authority which the Minister is taking upon himself. The public inquiry which would result from the Amendment would enlighten the country, and make certain that the Minister has looked at the facts before exerting his final authority and that the House of Commons knows what is going on. I have pleasure in supporting the Amendment.

Mr. George Younger (Ayr): I also strongly support the Amendment, which would go far to allay the fears of people concerned with the port industry in Scotland about the effects that might follow the proposals contained in the Bill. I hope that the Minister will not reject out of hand the sensible suggestion in the Amendment. If he does, he and his successors will have to make many difficult decisions without the benefit of the full information and assistance which could be provided by a public inquiry.

7.45 p.m.

By way of illustration, may I mention the River Clyde which has a series of ports, all under one authority. It is a most enlightened and far-seeing authority which is still relatively young. In the few years during which the Clyde Port Authority has been in existence it has made a notable contribution to bringing to public awareness the future port possibilities of the River Clyde. The authority in the last two years has drawn to public attention the tremendous possibilities of the unique deep water of the Clyde, and I use the word " unique " in its proper sense. There is not another


deep stretch of water of the same quality and suitability waiting to be exploited throughout Western Europe.

If the Amendment is rejected the Minister may bring forward an order to implement the Bill as it affects the whole Clyde area without first getting the views of the local people and those concerned with local industry. It is not enough for people to know that there is a marvellous deep water river suitable for development. Before development takes place enthusiasm and backing, the focusing of public attention and the lobbying of users, local authorities and planning organisations are required. This is what has been done by the Clyde Port Authority. It has stimulated an interest in the deep waters of the Clyde. If the Bill goes through without the Amendment, the local interest and involvement will lose its cutting edge and this could adversely affect the prosperity of the area.

The ports to which I am referring are all publicly owned. Many people are perfectly prepared to accept public ownership, but are deeply concerned that the impetus for new development will lose its cutting edge if the decision is taken away from the people in the area who are closely concerned with it. This is the point of the Amendment. If the Minister were considering making an order, he would have the benefit of a public inquiry to tell him what the people in the area felt about it. Be under no illusions; this could have a tremendous effect on the economy of the area in question. If any future organisation of the ports led to any diminution in the enthusiasm by the Clyde Port Authority in developing facilities in the Clyde, it would not merely be a matter of losing an aspect of port development but would endanger the future development of an important part of industry in central Scotland.

I know that the Minister, or indeed any future Minister, would not deliberately take a decision that seemed wrong to him, but does he feel that from his ivory tower in his Ministry office he will be able to obtain all the information he requires about the situation on the ground? He would be a remarkable man if he claimed to do that. Therefore, he should look favourably on this Amendment which will give him the benefit of

information from the grass roots in making future decisions.

The Minister might well feel that if he gives way on this matter there will be inquiries galore all over the place. I do not accept that view. I do not believe that people will expect inquiries, involving a great deal of money, time and trouble, to take place for spurious purposes. If this Amendment is accepted, it will give an opportunity for a sensible and well-needed inquiry to go forward and will warn the Minister if he seeks to do something which will affect prosperity in an area. Nothing will be lost and everything will be gained by accepting the Amendment.

I have no doubt that once the Bill goes through the Minister's intention is to help port development. But if he rejects this Amendment he will cut himself off from direct contact with the people on the ground. There is concern in Scotland about the likely effects of the Bill on the ability of people to make their own decisions and to put forward their plans with enthusiasm and knowledge of local circumstances. The Minister could go 90 per cent. of the way towards allaying those fears if he would agree to accept this Amendment. He will have the thanks of hon. Members on all sides of the House if he brings more public participation into the future decisions in this vital industry.

Mr. Will Griffiths: I did not have the advantage of hearing the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Edward M. Taylor) and I had not intended to intervene on this Amendment. But since reference has been made to the Manchester Ship Canal and since I represent a district of Manchester, I am provoked to take part in this debate.
I am sure that the hon. Member for Cathcart would not have put down this Amendment unless he was convinced that there was a widespread demand in Britain for inquiries of this sort, but I have had no representations on this matter. I have, however, received a vast number of duplicated letters all complaining about the compensation terms.
I was in the House in the 1945–50 Parliament when many nationalization


Measures were passed. The Government of the day persuaded the House, and indeed for a while persuaded me, that there should be limits on public accountability. It did not take me long to come to the conclusion that there should be a greater degree of public accountability after the event than exists in the nationalised industries today. I have never believed it to be improper that the day-to-day conduct of the nationalised industries should be scrutinised by the House of Commons, and I recently referred to this matter on the Post Office Bill. But I cannot see that this Amendment is justified.

Mr. Edward M. Taylor: Would the hon. Member not agree that it is only by such an Amendment as this that Manchester and its population could obtain an assurance that the National Ports Authority would not run down the port of Manchester with all its employees?

Mr. Griffiths: The hon. Gentleman will not be surprised to learn that I am very concerned about the future prosperity of the City of Manchester. I have a vested interest in the matter, but I am not sure that what the Opposition are seeking to do in this Amendment will preserve the prosperity of Manchester. We have recently in Manchester been facing a redundancy problem in the engineering industry in the private sector in A.E.I. The House is also aware of redundancies in other industries and of pit closures, and that the changing pattern of industry in Lancashire has brought about great changes in, for example, the textile industry.
Are the Opposition saying that there should be public inquiries in the private sector before any changes are made in the pattern of industry? I have never known them to be very strong in their calls for inquiries in the private sector. Therefore, there is a degree of hypocrisy and obstructionism, and indeed a doctrinaire approach, in the Amendment.

Dr. Winstanley: Would the hon. Member acknowledge that the Liberal Party has recommended public inquiries for example in the case of mergers in order to inquire into the interest of employees and the public interest in general. But is this not possible with regard to a merger of

Manchester with Liverpool, and should it not be considered in the same light?

Mr. Griffiths: I was referring to the changing pattern of industry in Britain. Many of my hon. Friends represent coal-mining areas. Will any hon. Member argue that, because it is impossible to carry on this particular industry in one part of Great Britain, at all costs it should be preserved. What the House of Commons, the Executive and a responsible Opposition should do is see how they can shield our citizens from the consequences of changing industrial patterns. In fact, this Government have done a great deal in that direction since 1964.
To return to the strict terms of the Amendment, what we all need to do in the future is look more closely than we have in the past at the best way of controlling the performances of our nationalised industries. There is no doubt about that. They are different from the private sector in that they belong to the nation and are accountable to the nation. However, I am not prepared to accept an Amendment in these terms. It is doctrinaire and obstructive, and I cannot see how it can be consistent with the philosophy of the party opposite.
I notice that the hon. Member for Liverpool, Wavertree (Mr. Tilney) has returned to the Chamber. He was discussing the ports along the Ship Canal and about what is to happen to Ellesmere Port, and so on. If the existing pattern of organisation on the canal remains unchanged, is it conceivable that economic and social changes in the future may not produce the very circumstances of which he is apprehensive? Of course that may happen. It has happened in the past in Lancashire. It is happening in the textile industry and in coal mining.
It is our responsibility to see that people are insulated against the social consequences of industrial change, but we cannot do that before the event by tying the Minister's hands in the way envisaged in this Amendment.
In my view, the House will be well advised to reject this wrecking Amendment.

8.0 p.m.

Mr. Stainton: It does not call for much inspiration to guess that the Minister's view is tilted in the direction of rejecting


this Amendment, and I expect that his argument will be more or less as follows. First, he will say that this is a wrecking Amendment, in the sort of terms that the hon. Member for Manchester, Exchange (Mr. Will Griffiths) has just employed. Secondly, the right hon. Gentleman will say that the Amendment would make the whole procedure extremely long-winded. Thirdly, he will say that it could add to the uncertainty surrounding the whole situation which has been made much of from our side of the House. There would be some virtue in that argument in the context of the Bill. Fourthly, he will say that the areas affected are referred to in the Amendment. I am not altogether happy about that, because the prosperity of a dock and the services that it gives extend not merely to the hinterland. Goods having their origin in Chesterfield, say, may be shipped from Avonmouth, which is a considerable distance away. The, Amendment does not strike the right note in that regard. Then there is the old chestnut about inadequate drafting, and one could have a field day with the words " substantial representations ". I hope that the Minister will not over-indulge himself with that argument.
There is another side to this coin, and it does not require a great deal of argument from me. It was put forward eloquently this afternoon by the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heller). The underlying argument in favour of reducing the 5 million tons limit to 100,000 was that the proposal had very substantial support from the dockers—an element of the public. That was the theme running throughout the deliveries from hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway opposite. Despite the difficulties in the Amendment as it now stands—and there is plenty of time to alter it—the virtues of consultation in this context have been argued for us by hon. Gentlemen opposite. We are only too pleased to accede to those arguments in the context of this Amendment, as I am sure my hon. Friends will agree.
If the Minister has the self-confidence and assurance of what he has in hand, what has he to fear as a result of a public inquiry?

Mr. Bruce Campbell: I support the Amendment. As I understand it, it is only if the Amendment is accepted that constituents of mine who

have shares in the Manchester Ship Canal can have any prospect of being adequately compensated for their shares. As I understand the situation, shares in the Manchester Ship Canal Company have a true value of more than £6. It is proposed to compensate shareholders at a price of 32s. 6d. Only if the Amendment is accepted will shareholders have any possibility of making representations against their shares being taken from them at that deflated price.
I have received no less than 60 letters from constituents, all of which I have forwarded to the Minister. What has struck me is that they do not come from millionaires or great capitalists who have shares in all sorts of concerns. I know the addresses from which the letters have come. I have knocked at those doors. They come from humble people who live in tiny terraced houses and who have a few shares in the Manchester Ship Canal Company. In many cases, those shares have been passed down from generation to generation, and they represent the very small assets of poor people. Those same people are to be relieved of their shares at a price of 32s. 6d., when everyone knows that their true value is something over £6.
I do not know how this Government can do it. Some of us regard their action as confiscation and think that another word for confiscation is robbery. There is no other way of describing it when shares which are worth £6 are being taken from people in return for 32s. 6d. I do not know how the Government can do it, but I gather that they propose to do it, and I hope that this Amendment will be accepted if only because it will enable the Minister to reconsider the matter.

Mr. Ellis: The hon. and learned Gentleman should say a little more on this point. The share value quoted by my right hon. Friend is related, in the time-honoured formula which has operated before, to the value quoted by the stock market. If these poor people are being robbed, they have also been robbed over the years because the true value has not been put on their shares by the stock market.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Sydney Irving): The hon. and learned Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Bruce Campbell) is going into too much detail on this


issue, as distinct from the matter of inquiries, which is the subject of the Amendment.

Mr. Campbell: In that event I will say no more, except that I do not accept the hon. Member's comments. He knows very well that there are valid reasons for the low Stock Exchange price. These shares do have a true value of over £6. This does come within the terms of the Amendment because it refers to the prosperity of the area. If these shares are taken from these poor shareholders at this deflated price it must affect the prosperity of the area. If they were adequately compensated they could invest the proceeds in other industries in the area, making it more prosperous.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport (Mr. Albert Murray): The hon. Member for Sudbury and Woodbridge (Mr. Stainton) tried to make some of my speech for me, but I hope that he will not mind if I go over some of the points he thought I would make. The hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Edward M. Taylor) started off with the " electionitis " that most of his colleagues seem to have. It should be pointed out that whenever a General Election takes place it will not change the position of the parties in the House. The hon. Member introduced a very interesting constitutional doctrine in the Amendment. It looked as though he is suggesting that every time the Government introduced an Act of Parliament they should hold public inquiries all over the place dealing with its effect.

Mr. Michael Heseltine: I think that my hon. Friend was suggesting that the Government do what the Labour Party did in the 1940's when it nationalised the bus industry and used the public inquiry procedure.

Mr. Murray: I am about to point out why we do not think that is necessary. If at some point in the dim and distant future a Conservative Government were returned, I am certain that they would not have had in their election manifesto the promise that they would hold public inquiries every time they passed an Act of Parliament.
The hon. Member spoke of the word " substantial ". What does it mean? To

someone who has nothing, " substantial " can be £1. To someone with quite a lot it would have to be a lot more. The same applies to the word " prosperity ". What does that mean within the terms of the Amendment? The hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart knows that this is a wrecking Amendment. The hon. Member for Harwich (Mr. Ridsdale) mentioned the sword of Damocles hanging over various parts of the country. If a public inquiry is held at which " substantial representations ", whatever that may mean, can be made, this can go on for weeks, months or years. The uncertainty mentioned by hon. Members would be increased.
The hon. Member for Cheadle (Dr. Winstanley) took his usual middle of the road position and at the end, as has been the case so far on Report, he veered to the right, contrary to the tradition of driving in this country. He veers to the right every time he take his middle of the road position.

Dr. Winstanley: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will accept that the right place on the road in the Manchester Ship Canal is on the right.

Mr. Murray: I have no doubt about it, but being in the middle of the Manchester Ship Canal is worse than being in the middle of the road.
The hon. Member for Ayr (Mr. Younger) seemed to think that the N.P.A. and the people working in the docks and ports would not want success, but that is far from the truth. My hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Exchange (Mr. Will Griffiths) made a valid point when he said that he had not received any representations or demands for a public inquiry into the areas in which the Ports Bill will operate. Neither have I.
Clause 1(7) empowers the Minister to appoint the vesting day by order made under statutory instrument. It does not allow him to vary in any way the criteria governing which harbours are to be taken over under Clause 1(3). The Bill determines which ports are to be taken over and provides for arbitration under Clause 25 when the N.P.A. and the relevant harbour authority fail to agree. In that sense the Amendment is misguided since the order to which it relates only affects the date of take-over and not the question of whether a particular port does or does not


fall within Clause 1(3)(b) of the Bill. If the Amendment were accepted it would mean indefinite delay, cumbersome public inquiries yet would add absolutely nothing to the Bill. Accordingly I ask the House to reject it.

Mr. Norman Miscampbell: I want to support my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Bruce Campbell) and deal with the point raised by the hon. Member for Bristol, North-West (Mr. Ellis), who said that he could not understand why the price for the shares in the Manchester Ship Canal was wrong because those who controlled the company did not disclose to their shareholders over the years what the company was worth and thus the shares ought to have stood higher on the Stock Exchange. The simple answer is that under the law at the time, because the Canal Company came under certain accounting procedures it was not possible to disclose what the company was worth.

Mr. Stainton: I am following my hon. Friend's argument with great interest, but surely there is another point. Whatever may be the law, have the Government no conscience? Have they not a process of valuation? If the directors have been doing this, are they determined to take advantage of it?

Mr. Miscampbell: That is exactly the point I was about to make.
I understand that the Labour Party went through the 1930s and 1940s deciding that nationalisation was its great aim and object and why it chose the formula that it did at that time. I believe it to be an unfair formula, and it should not be carried into the future simply because of precedent. I cannot understand why the formula is used today, because it immediately imposes -on my constituents a considerable economic disadvantage. I have had more representations on this aspect of the Bill than I have received about any other Bill before the House. When we consider the number of Bills affecting animals that we deal with this is a remarkable statement. But Blackpool is full of people who own a small packet of shares in this company and on any basis on which one can look at it, and on any calculation one can make, they are being cheated of their money.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I am afraid the hon. Gentleman is getting out of order on this Amendment. All we can discuss is whether there should be a public inquiry before an order is made under subsection (7). We are not discussing the affairs of a company or the affairs of his constituency, unless related to the Amendment.

Mr. Miscampbell: I appreciate that, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Because so many people are affected by this in my constituency and my area I am saying that we should have a public inquiry because the economic effects are likely to be serious. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Oldham, West made the point that the addresses from which the letters we are all receiving come are not those of the wealthy or well to do. These letters are from those who in many cases are the successors of the people who put their money into this company in the North-West. It was something which attracted a great deal of local loyalty. Money was put in many years ago. The scrip has remained in the attics through the years. Now these people find they are to be recompensed by only a tiny amount of what their shares are really worth.

Mr. Ellis: The hon. Gentleman has been very ingenious in talking of the affairs of Manchester. I hope that after this debate in the House nobody is going to say we never came to the problems of Manchester or of compensation because, as I hope the hon. Gentleman agrees, he has been able correctly, within the rules of order, to make this important point.

Mr. Miscampbell: Because we are under the guillotine we are forced to look at the Amendments to see if we can get in rather earlier than we might. It is no thanks to the Government that I am able to make this speech. I did not intend to make it on this Amendment, but I realised that I would not be able to do so unless I made it now. I do not think my constituents will mind if I make it on this Amendment rather than wait till later and perhaps not get called. On behalf of those who are being penalised at this moment, I must say that we really should accept this, because if it was a private company that was being taken over those who owned the shares would be able to say, " No, 32s. 6d. is


not enough ". There are 1,800 undeveloped acres of prime land, worth millions of pounds which has never been represented in the balance sheet; it could not be, because of the law.

Mr. Will Griffiths: On a point of order. Surely it is out of order to discuss compensation terms. They ought not to be discussed. With respect, it is really bringing the House into the wrong alignment if the debate is to be solely on compensation matters.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I have already indicated to the House that comment must be related only to the Amendment. The hon. Gentleman is going a little wider.

Mr. Miscampbell: Mr. Deputy Speaker, I am well aware that I must relate what I say to the economic detriment of the area I represent; and I do so, because if they do not get adequate compensation terms, undoubtedly that is something on which there should be an inquiry.

Mr. Mulley: I am very happy that the hon. Gentleman should make this speech. He will realise that a reply on the details of the case may not be given; but if he will look at the proceedings of the Standing Committee, beginning at column 507, he will see a reply dealing with all the points he is bringing up. In theEconomistlast October—some six months before the White Paper announcing the terms—that newspaper told the world all about these acres and securities; and they were clearly within the knowledge of the Stock Exchange for six months, which is the six months period on which valuation is based.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I must remind hon. Gentlemen that this is very wide of the Amendment. These are matters which could well be argued in an inquiry but not in detail on this Amendment.

Mr. Miscampbell: I am neither going to try the patience of the House nor, more importantly, your patience, Mr. Deputy Speaker, a moment longer. I have made my point on behalf of my constituency. It is one which has been made endlessly to the Government.

Dr. Winstanley: The hon. Gentleman has said he has made his point, and I

agree that he has. Would it be right to make clear that there are other hon. Members who might like to have made precisely the same point but did not do so because they felt that had they done so they would thereby have been out of order?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Gentleman commenced his speech by saying he was going to be very brief. I hope he will conclude very shortly.

Mr. Miscampbell: Had it not been for interruptions, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I should have sat down long ago. I am quite sure that nobody in this House, if he was not Whipped, could not but agree with me.

Mr. Michael Heseltine: I am sure my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, North (Mr. Miscampbell) has highlighted the grave dilemma of everybody who wishes to make the case of Manchester Ship Canal shareholders. He will concede that he is seeking an opportunity to do so, and trying your indulgence, because he knows first of all that the hon. Member for Manchester, Exchange (Mr. W. Griffiths) is trying to draw your attention to points of order to stop him from doing so. He knows that the fact that we have used two hours and 10 minutes—[Interruption]

Mr. Will Griffiths: I do not at all mind the hon. Member for Tavistock (Mr. Michael Heseltine) commenting on my speech in any respect. What he must not do is misrepresent what I have said in the House of Commons. I am very much in favour of his hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, North saying what he likes, so long as he is within the rules of order.

Mr. Heseltine: The hon. Member for Manchester, Exchange has been drawing attention to the fact that, in his opinion, my hon. Friend was out of order. I am not complaining of that. I am merely saying that it was the hon. Gentleman opposite who sought to draw your attention, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to rules of the House which would have had the effect of precluding further discussion on compensation terms for Manchester Ship Canal shareholders. The hon. Gentleman opposite realises the dilemma that we on this side of the House are confronted with in that because we have


used two hours and 10 minutes this afternoon debating an Amendment which was never voted on we are, because of the Guillotine, not to get a chance to discuss this matter properly. That is our difficulty.

Mr. Ellis: Does not the hon. Gentleman agree that he has throughout this afternoon encouraged every one of his hon. Friends to speak in order that he may be able to say that on the issue of Manchester, "The guillotine fell and we were never able to discuss it "? His hon. Friend managed to do it and he is very niggledy because it is what he said and said to the press.

Mr. Heseltine: When it comes to accusations flung back and forth across the Floor of the House, accusing people of putting words into other people's mouths, the hon. Gentleman must rank pretty high.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I must remind hon. Members that it is the Amendment on the Order Paper that we are to discuss, and not the tactics of the Government or the Opposition.

8.30 p.m.

Mr. Heseltine: I do not want to pursue that. If I have taught the hon. Gentleman anything, that must be something for gratitude.
This is a most reasonable Amendment. In view of the anxiety that is felt in the regions which will be affected by the Bill, it was our intention to give responsible bodies representing major interests in the community one last opportunity when specifically local issues and anxieties could be explored in detail. This was done by the Labour Party when it nationalised the buses.

Mr. Murray: Did the Conservative Party support that Measure?

Mr. Heseltine: Of course we did not support it. I am talking about the procedure within that Measure. We could have supported isolated items within it, but we were against the principle, and there is no point in having public inquiries to establish that one is against the principle of a Bill. When hon. Gentlemen opposite first embarked on this nationalisation spree in 1940 they provided for public inquiries, but they discovered with the bus industry that there

was such an outcry against what they wanted to do that they could not bear to go through the difficulty again. They did it on the major issue of principle, but they found that local regions did not conform to the euphoric pattern of Amendment No. 5. In practice local people did not like the proposals when it came to applying them in their areas.
I should not want to introduce what could be considered a wrecking Amendment. We are not seeking to introduce a long period of delay. We all know that there will be some delay between the enactment of the Bill and vesting date. The Minister could get on with these public inquiries in the meantime. There is no reason why they should not be over before the Minister can reasonably expect to vest the ports in the authority.
If the Minister is suggesting that his timetable is so critical that even a week is so serious that he cannot adopt even that suggestion, one has to consider what has exerted such pressure at the tail end of this six-year period of Government by hon. Gentlemen opposite. I do not think that there is any great opportunity to suggest that we are trying to wreck the Bill. We would be prepared to accept an Amendment to curtail the period within which the public inquiries should take place.
If I need to plead the case further, I mention the people who can ask for a public inquiry, and the sort of reasons which they can advance. There are only three groups of people—local authorities, organised representative workers, and port users. I do not think that anybody will seriously suggest that organisations representing any of those three responsible groups will exploit the situation in the way that has been suggested by hon. Gentlemen opposite. If I had suggested that anybody, or any irresponsible group of people, or any well-defined group of people could call for a public inquiry, I could understand the Minister's case, but I have not done that. I have asked that a narrow group of responsible people should have this opportunity. That seems to be a complete answer to the suggestion that we can be accused of trying to wreck the Bill.
The Joint Parliamentary Secretary found another reason for opposing the


Amendment. He suggested that the word " substantial " made a nonsense of the whole policy because it is impossible to define. He said that £1 is a lot of money if someone has nothing, but not a great deal if he has £10. He says that " substantial " is difficult to define, and therefore we should not use it in the drafting of legislation especially when it would have a significant effect.
I invite the hon. Gentleman's attention to Clause 5(2). The entire capital budget of the National Ports Authority could be £30 million to £40 million. That subsection refers to the Minister's power in relation to
 proposals involving substantial outlay on capital account ".
This is a question, as so often happens with the hon. Gentleman, of his taking a bad argument and flogging it to death. It does not stand up to any examination.
The second area of restriction which we have imposed upon ourselves is that people can ask for a public inquiry only if they believe that the prosperity of the area is at stake. My hon. Friends were under pressure to show that compensation to the shareholders of this company affected the prosperity of the area. It is arguable whether it would, but only in a relatively narrow sense. We have put in this proviso so that people cannot come along with a doctrinaire approach and ask for an inquiry. They have to argue within the terms of the prosperity of the area, and this highlights the difficulties and anxieties which confront us in dealing with the Bill.
The fact is that in every area at which one looks in considering the application of the Bill one finds real local problems which are not applicable to other parts of the country. Everyone who has looked at the proposals in the Bill knows that the Minister does not have the answers to the crucial questions which local people will want answered before deciding whether they are in favour of the Bill. The essence of the problem confronting people working in Manchester and in the shipping company is whether there will be a Manchester dock if there is to be a rationalisation of Mersey Docks and Harbour Board all over the Mersey. Nobody knows. The Minister does not know, and he says that it is not his job to know.
It is the National Ports Authority's job to make up its mind; but is that a satisfactory argument for all those employed in the Manchester docks when at some subsequent date, when Parliament has already divested itself of the power to make decisions, the National Ports Authority, which is as yet unconstituted, will decide whether there is to be a future for the Manchester docker or the Manchester manager or the people in any way dependent upon that port? Is that really something that the National Ports Authority should make up its mind about? Is not something that should worry the hon. Member for Manchester, Exchange (Mr. Will Griffiths), or the other hon. Members for that area? They have not asked the question and they do not know the answer to the question.

Mr. Mulley: The hon. Member should perhaps explain to the House who is responsible for this kind of decision. This is a private company accountable to its shareholders. The N.P.A. is accountable to the House.

Mr. Heseltine: The Minister has made a most helpful intervention, because he has shown the essence of the problem. It is the Manchester Ship Canal, which is, of essence, a local Mersey-based, Manchester-based, Manchester-run, and Manchester-managed organisation, which, at a number of crucial moments in its history, has had to fight against the odds for its existence. It is inconceivable that a group of managers appointed to the National Ports Authority would ever have dug the Manchester Ship Canal or would ever had thought to keep it in existence. It is a triumph of local ingenuity. It will always be easier to rationalise it out of existence because the trade can go to Liverpool, which has problems of its own.
Therefore, the national interests will supersede the present interest, which is the interest of the Manchester people. That is why it is important that there should be public inquiries to establish these problems before one goes further in any way and moves on from Manchester—which, goodness knows, has problems enough. I ask the Parliamentary Secretary to clarify the position. How many years' guarantee of life are expected, which will be backed by the Government, for the Manchester Ship


Canal? How many years will he guarantee it its continued existence under the National Ports Authority? It is important that the Parliamentary Secretary should either say " No answer ", or tell us how many years are guaranteed.

Mr. Mulley: Mr. Mulleyrose—

Mr. Heseltine: I said " the Parliamentary Secretary ".

Mr. Mulley: I am the Minister and I am quite capable of answering the hon. Member. I have been in the House too long to answer questions of the kind " When did you stop beating your wife?", so if the hon. Member has any more he had better save them. Then he will waste less time complaining. He and his hon. Friends have eaten up the time under the Guillotine, and we have not got down to discussing Manchester on the Manchester Clause.

Mr. Heseltine: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for the intervention he has made. What is the guarantee for the Manchester Ship Canal? That was the question. It is no use the Minister getting indignant or trying to change the subject. There is no guarantee, and there will be no local people in charge to make the decisions and fight for its continued existence. Let us understand that before we move on to Bristol.
The hon. Member for Bristol, North-West (Mr. Ellis) will understand the problems. He has seen a Government who have turned down the Portbury scheme and the Bristol West Dock scheme, and are now, presumably, considering the West Dock Mark II scheme, which might be crucial to the continued existence and development of the Bristol employees. So let me make clear the attitude of the Opposition—and of the Government of the future—to the West Dock Mark II scheme.
We make it clear to the people of Bristol, as we have on earlier occasions, that we would allow the West Dock Mark II scheme to go ahead if Bristol wants to go ahead with it, as it is free to do. We make it clear that—[Interruption] The statements in this House are widely reported and the hon. Member knows it. If the hon. Member wishes to make an issue of this he has only to make sure the remarks I make are

widely reported. We have never believed that the South Wales ports are threatened by Bristol, so we support the West Dock Mark II scheme.

Mr. Ellis: Is the hon. Gentleman saying that financing it will follow the general pattern of the rest of the country, that there will be no inhibitions about this as there were with the other scheme?

Mr. Heseltine: The hon. Gentleman knows procedure as well as I do. The Bristol Municipal Port has gone to the National Ports Council and asked for Government intervention. The decision must await the findings of the council. The council recommended both Portbury and the West Dock Mark II, and both were turned down by the Labour Government for reasons best known to themselves. The same applies to the Tees and Hartlepools Authority—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is arguing wider issues than are dealt with in the Amendment, which is concerned with the question whether there should be public inquiries.

Mr. Heseltine: I do not want to trespass on your tolerance, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but I am giving the reasons why different local areas will want local inquiries. There is a solid reason in each area for local people to plead their case. But time does not permit me to argue this case under a Guillotine. My hon. Friends have referred to these authorities—for example, the Tees and Hartlepools and the Clyde—all of whom have strong reasons for taking advantage of this situation.
Another precedent was set, again in Manchester, by the former Labour Government. They wanted to nationalise the airports, but, under great pressure from the people of Manchester, were persuaded to leave out the Ringway Airport. One of the reasons was that this change would provide an objective standard of comparison for the other airports as they develop. The Ringway Airport contributes to the rates and makes a profit of £200,000 a year—a very successful local airport developed by local ingenuity and pride. It is a classic case of pressure from a city persuading a Government to keep their hands off a major asset. This is exactly the same as our argument, which is crucial.
Some hon. Members have argued that the workers are solidly in favour of the Bill. I believe that the overwhelming majority of workers have not had the Bill clearly explained to them. They will be eager for these inquiries when they understand that the Minister is taking over 90 per cent. of the tonnage capacity. Three ports are losing £4 million a year. The right hon. Gentleman has given the N.P.A. the financial discipline of breaking even, so it will be looking for a surplus of £4 million with which to do it. The profits of all the ports which are to be taken over, apart from these three, add up to an aggregate of £4 million. In other words, all the successful ports will be used to subsidise the three loss-makers —London, the Forth and Liverpool. It is a direct form of cross-subsidy, however it is defined. It means that the workers in Manchester, the British Transport Docks Board, Milford, Bristol or Tees and Hartlepools will be working to keep

Liverpool, London and the Forth in their present situation.

The pressure, therefore, will always be for men who are successful in the ports which are now successful to go on being successful—not to achieve more investment for their own ports, but to maintain the losses of the three ports which are already losing money. When this message gets across, followed by the other temptation—to divert traffic from the successful ports to the unsuccessful—the organisations of workers will be alive to the grave dangers of centralising these decisions and not letting local people exercise their own discretion.

For all those reasons I believe that this would be a very appropriate time for the Minister to find out what local opinion in the areas really thinks and will give him the opportunity to think once again.

Question put, That the Amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 177, Noes 234.

Division No. [108.]
AYES
[8.45] p.m.


Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)
Elliott,R.W.(N'c'tie-upon-Tyne, N.)
King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Emery, Peter
King, Tom


Archer, Jeffrey (Louth)
Errington, Sir Eric
Kirk, Peter


Atkins, Humphrey (M't'n &amp; M'd'n)
Eyre, Reginald
Knight, Mrs. Jill


Awdry, Daniel
Farr, John
Lambton, Antony


Baker, Kenneth (Acton)
Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Lancaster, Col. C. G.


Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)
Fortescue, Tim
Lane, David


Barber, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Fry, Peter
Langford-Holt, Sir John


Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton
Galbraith, Hn. T. C.
Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry


Bell, Ronald
Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)
Lloyd, Ian (P'tsm'th, Langstone)


Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)
Glover, Sir Douglas
Lubbock, Eric


Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gos. &amp; Fhm)
Godber, Rt. Hn. J. B.
Mackenzie, Alasdair(Ross &amp; Crom'ty)


Berry, Hn. Anthony
Goodhart, Philip
McMaster, Stanley


Biffen, John
Gower, Raymond
Macmillan, Maurice (Farnham)


Blaker, Peter
Grant, Anthony
McNair-Wilson, Michael


Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.)
Grieve, Percy
Maginnis, John E.


Bossom, Sir Clive
Grimond, Rt. Hn. J.
Marten, Nell


Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John
Curden, Harold
Maude, Angus


Boyle, Rt. Hn. Sir Edward
Hall, John (Wycombe)
Mawby, Ray


Brewis, John
Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
Maxwell-Hyslop R. J.


Brinton, Sir Tatton
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
May don, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C.


Bruce-Gardyne, J.
Harrison, Brian (Maldon)
Mills Peter (Torrington)


Bryan, Paul
Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)
Miscampbell, Norman


Buchanan-Smith, Alick(Angus, N &amp; M)
Hawkins, Paul
Monro, Hector


Burden, F. A.
Heald, Rt. Hn. Sir Lionel
Montgomery, Fergus


Campbell, B. (Oldham, W.)
Heseltine Michael
More, Jasper


Campbell, Gordon (Moray &amp; Nairn)
Hiley, Joseph
Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)


Chichester-Clark, R.
Hill, J. E. B.
Morrison Charles (Devizes)


Clark, Henry
Hirst, Geoffrey
Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles


Cooke, Robert
Hogg, Rt. Hn. Quintin
Munro-Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh


Cooper-Key, Sir Neil[...]
Holland, Philip
Murton, Oscar


Cordle, John
Hordern, Peter
Nabarro, Sir Gerald


Costain, A. P.
Hornby, Richard
Neave, Airey


Crouch, David
Hunt, John
Nicholls, Sir Harmar


Crowder, F. P.
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael


Cunningham, Sir Knox
Iremonger, T. L.
Nott, John


Dalkeith, Earl of
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Onslow, Cranley


Dance, James
Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)
Pardoe, John


Davidson, James(Aberdeenshire, W.)
Jennings, J. C. (Burton)
Pearson, Sir Frank (Clitheroe)


Dean, Paul
Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)
Peel, John


Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F. (Ashford)
Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)
Peyton, John


Dodds-Parker, Douglas
Jopling, Michael
Pike, Miss Mervyn


Doughty, Charles
Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith
Pounder, Rafton


Drayson, G. B.
Kaberry, Sir Donald
Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch


du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward






Price, David (Eastleigh)
Speed, Keith
Ward, Christopher (Swindon)


Pym, Francis
Stainton, Keith
Ward, Dame Irene


Rees-Davies, W. R
Stodart, Anthony
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M.
Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William


Ridley, Hn. Nicholas
Tapsell, Peter
Williams, Donald (Dudley)


Ridsdale, Julian
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Robson Brown, Sir William
Taylor, Edward M.(G'gow, Cathcart)
Winstanley, Dr. M. P.


Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)
Temple, John M.
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


St. John-Stevas, Norman
Tilney, John
Woodnutt, Mark


Scott, Nicholas
van Straubenzee, W. R.
Worsley, Marcus


Scott-Hopkins, James
Victors, Dame Joan
Wright, Esmond


Sharples, Richard
Waddington, David
Younger, Hn. George


Shaw, Michael (Sc'h'gh &amp; Whitby)
Walnwright, Richard (Coine Valley)



Sinclair, Sir George
Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Smith, Dudley(W'wlck &amp; L'mington)
Wall, Patrick
Mr. Timothy Kitson and


Smith, John (London &amp; W'minster)
Walters, Dennis
Mr. Walter Clegg.




NOES


Albu, Austen
Finch, Harold
McBride, Neil


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)
McCann, John


Alldritt, Walter
Foley, Maurice
MacColl, James


Allen, Scholefield
Ford, Ben
Macdonald, A. H.


Anderson, Donald
Forrester, John
McElhone, Frank


Archer, Peter (R'wley Regis &amp; Tipt'n)
Fowler, Gerry
McGuire, Michael


Armstrong, Ernest
Fraser, John (Norwood)
McKay, Mrs. Margaret


Ashley, Jack
Galpern, Sir Myer
Mackenzie, Gregor (Rutherglen)


Atkins, Ronald (Preston, N.)
Garrett, W. E.
Mackic, John


Atkinson, Norman (Tottenham)
Ginsburg, David
Maclennan, Robert


Bacon, Rt. Hn. Alice
Golding, John
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)


Bagier, Cordon A. T.
Gordon Walker, Rt. Hn. P. C.
MacPherson, Malcolm


Barnett, Joel
Gray, Dr. Hugh (Yarmouth)
Mahon, Peter (Preston, S.)


Baxter, William
Greenwood, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Mahon, Simon (Bootle)


Beaney, Alan
Gregory, Arnold
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)


Bence, Cyril
Grey, Charles (Durham)
Mallalieu, J.P.W.(Huddersfield, E.)


Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood
Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)
Mapp, Charles


Bennett, James (G'gow, Bridgeton)
Griffiths, Will (Exchange)
Marquand, David


Bidwell, Sydney
Gunter, Rt. Hn. R. J.
Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy


Binns, John
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Melllsh, Rt. Hn. Robert


Bishop, E. S.
Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)
Mendelson, John


Blackburn, F.
Hannan, William
Milkardo, Ian


Booth, Albert;
Harper, Joseph
Millan, Bruce


Boston, Terence;
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Miller, Dr M S


Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur
Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith
Mitchell, R C (s'th'pton, Test)


Boyden, James
Haseldine, Norman
Moonman, Eric


Bray, Dr. Jeremy
Hattersley, Roy
Moonman, Eric


Brown, Rt. Hn. George (Belper)
Hazell, Bert
Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)


Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)
Heffer, Eric S.
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)


Brown, Bob(N'c'tle-upon-Tyne,W.)
Herblson, Rt. Hn. Margaret
Morris, John (Aberavon)


Brown, R. W. (Shoreditch &amp; F'bury)
Hilton, W. S.
Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick


Buchan, Norman
Hobden, Dennis
Murray, Albert


Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn)
Horner, John
Neal, Harold


Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Newens, Stan


Cant, R. B.
Howarth, Harry (Wellingborough)
Oakes, Gordon


Carmichael, Neil
Howie, W.
Ogden, Eric


Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara
Hoy, Rt. Hn. James
O'Halloran, Michael


Chapman, Donald
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
O'Malley, Brian


Coleman, Donald
Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Oram, Bert


Concannon, J. D.
Hunter, Adam
Orbach, Maurice


Conlan, Bernard
Hynd, John
Orme, Stanley


Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Irvine. Rt. Hn Sir Arthur
Oswald, Thomas


Crawshaw, Richard
Jackson, Colin (B'h'se &amp; Spenb'gh)
Page, Derek (King's Lynn)


Cronin, John
Jackson, Peter M. (High Peak)
Paget, R. T.


Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Janner, Sir Barnett
Palmer, Arthur


Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard
Jeger, Mrs Lena (H'b'n &amp; St.P'cras, S.)
Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles


Dalyell, Tarn
Jenkins, Hugh(Putney)
Parker, John (Dagenham)


Darling, Rt. Hn. George
Johnson. Carol (Lewisham, s.)
Parkyn, Brian (Bedford)


Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, w.)
Pavitt, Laurence


Davies, Dr. Ernest (stretford)
Jones. Dan {Burnley)
Pearson. Arthur (Pontypridd)


Davies, Rt. Hn. Harold (Leek)
Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, West)
Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred


Davies, I for (Gower)
Judd, Frank
Pentland, Norman


Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
Kenyon, Clifford
Perry, Ernest G. (Battersea, S.)


de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey
Kerr, Mrs. Anne (R'ter &amp; Chatham)
Perry, George H. (Nottingham, S.)


Delargy, H. J.
Kerr, Russell (Feltham)
Price, Christopher (Perry Barr)


Dell, Rt. Hn. Edmund
Latham, Arthur
Price, William (Rugby)


Dewar, Donald
Lawson, George
Probert, Arthur


Diamond, Rt. Hn. John
Leadbitter, Ted
Randall, Harry


Doig, Peter
Lee, Rt. Kn. Frederick (Newton)
Rankin, John


Dunn, James A.
Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)
Rees, Merlyn


Eadie, Alex
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Rhodes, Geoffrey


Edelman, Maurice
Lomas, Kenneth
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
Loughlin, Charles
Roberts, Rt. Hn. Goronwy


Ellis, John
Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)
Roberts, Gwilym (Bedfordshire, S.)


English, Michael
Mabon Dr. J. Dickson
Robertson, John (Paisley)


Ennals, David









Robinson, Rt.Hn.Kenneth(St.P'c'as)
Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley
Whitlock, William


Rodgers, William (Stockton)
Swain, Thomas
Wilkins, W. A.


Rose, Paul
Taverne, Dick
Williams, Alan Lee (Hornchurch)


Ross, Rt. Hn. William
Thornton, Ernest
Williams, Clifford (Abertillery)


Rowlands, E.
Tinn, James
Willis, Rt. Hn. George


Sheldon, Robert
Tomney, Frank
Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)


Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)
Tuck, Raphael
Winnick, David


Sillars, J.
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)
Woodburn, Rt. Hn. A.


Silverman, Julius
Wallace, George
Woof, Robert


Slater, Joseph
Watkins, Tudor (Brecon &amp; Radnor)
Wyatt, Woodrow


Small, William
Weitzman, David



Snow, Julian
Wellbeloved, James
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Spriggs, Leslie
Whitaker, Ben
Mr. R. F. H. Dobson and


Steele, Thomas (Dunbartonshire, W.)
White, Mrs. Eirene
Mr. loan L. Evans.


Stonehouse, Rt. Hn. John

Clause 3

ESTABLISHMENT OF, AND DELEGATIONS TO, PORT BOARDS

Mr. Murray: I beg to move Amendment No. 8, in page 5, line 6, leave out paragraph (b).
This is a straightforward Amendment. In Committee the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Edward M. Taylor), in one of his infrequent interventions—[Laughter]—criticised paragraph (b) on the ground that it would give the N.P.A. power to interfere unnecessarily in the internal arrangements which port boards will make for the running of their affairs.
After considering the points which the hon. Member raised, we have agreed that there is no need for the power contained in Clause (3)(5)(b) in relation to the composition of committees because provision can, and will, be made in devolution schemes, under Clause 2(4), for port boards to act through committees, and we feel that there is no need to restrict the port boards.

Mr. Edward M. Taylor: I am grateful to the Joint Parliamentary Secretary for this concession, which, although it is not a major one, is a concession nevertheless. Although throughout these proceedings we have been opposed to nationalisation, we take the view that if it must take place the N.P.A. and boards should operate as efficiently as possible. As originally drafted, this provision went into too much detail about the committees and their membership, and we are glad that the Government have now recognised this.

Amendment agreed to

Clause 5

POWERS OF MINISTER IN RELATION TO NATIONAL PORTS AUTHORITY

Mr. Murray: I beg to move Amendment No. 10, in page 7, line 38, leave out from ' account ' to ' the ' in line 39.
In Committee the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Edward M. Taylor) and my hon. Friend the Member for Poplar (Mr. Mikardo) argued that the N.P.A. should be free to decide its own policies for training and education, something which had been mentioned in paragraph 681 of the First Report of the Select Committee on Nationalised Industries for 1967–68.
It followed from that that the requirement that the N.P.A. should act on lines settled from time to time with the approval of the Minister in the discharge of its functions as to training and education was included in the Bill so as to put the authority in the same relationship with the Minister as the existing nationalised transport undertakings, including the British Transport Docks Board, under the 1962 and 1968 Transport Acts.
The Select Committee had pointed out:
 If the existence of the Minister's power to approve the main lines of research or development or training and education programmes is in any way an obstacle to proper informal agreement and understanding then the Committee believe that the need for these powers should be reconsidered.
We do not believe that the existence of the statutory provisions has been an obstacle, but in view of the points made in Committee we have decided that this specific statutory requirement on the N.P.A. should be dropped, and we hope that the House will accept the Amendment.

Mr. Edward M. Taylor: Once again we are grateful to the Minister for the tribute he has paid to the constructive part played by the Opposition on the Bill. If nothing else, this Amendment marks the only occasion in the Committee when the hon. Member for Poplar (Mr. Mikardo) and I found ourselves in agreement.

Amendment agreed to

Mr. Murray: I beg to move Amendment No. 11, in page 8, line 15, at end insert:
Provided that the Minister shall not give any such directions unless he is satisfied that the carrying on by the subsidiary of the activities or the retention by it of the part of the undertaking or the assets or the continuance of the loan or guarantee, as the case may be, is unnecessary for the proper discharge by the Authority of their duties.

9.0 p.m.

This Amendment is concerned with a point raised in Committee by my hon. Friend the Member for Poplar (Mr. Mikardo) on Clause 5(4). He pointed out that the proviso in subsection (3) was not repeated in subsection (4). This suggested that it might allow a future Minister to direct the N.P.A. to require a subsidiary to discontinue activities and dispose of assets without a proper safeguard. We think that very unlikely to happen, but the possibility would be there.

The Amendment removes any chance of this happening by making it essential for the Minister to be satisfied that the continuance of the activities or retention of the assets is unnecessary for the proper discharge of the N.P.A.'s duties before it gives any direction. The provisions of subsections (3) and (4) about activities are standard. There are similar ones in the 1947 Act and the 1962 Transport Act. The Committee was always seized of precedents and these are two precedents.

Mr. Edward M. Taylor: As the Parliamentary Secretary pointed out, the words in this Amendment are the same as those used in subsection (3). He appears to have put forward a very penetrating argument, but there is a question which causes us some little concern. Obviously the financial obligation on the N.P.A. is to make ends meet comparing one year with another. What worries us is that this Amendment might prevent the Minister

from giving a direction or using his powers of capital allocation to prevent the N.P.A. continuing a subsidiary which was making a substantial loss year after year.
If the N.P.A. had a subsidiary company which was running at a loss year after year that would not be inconsistent with the general obligation on the N.P.A. because that obligation is that the overall financial results should break even. By putting in this Amendment I wonder if the Minister is restricting his powers and that he would not be able to advise the N.P.A. to discontinue activities which are loss making. I appreciate that the same point arises under subsection (3) but it is of some importance.
I hope the Parliamentary Secretary can give some guidance on this. Does it restrict the Minister in endeavouring to restrain the N.P.A. from continuing a subsidiary which is losing a lot of money over a long period? I am sorry that I have not been able to give him notice of this question. If he is not able to give an answer tonight I hope that he will think about it before the later stages of the Bill.

Mr. Murray: I am grateful to the hon. Member for putting that point becaus this is a complicated matter. I  certainly lot him have an answer.

Amendment agreed to

Clause 6

GENERAL DUTIES AND POWERS OF NATIONAL PORTS AUTHORITY, AND ADAPTATION OF POWERS OF OTHER BODIES

Mr. Edward M. Taylor: I beg to move Amendment No. 12, in page 10, line 9, at end insert:
The National Ports Authority and its subsidiaries shall not, however, be empowered to engage in activities under section 48 of the Transport Act. 1968, unless, in each particular case, an order approving the proposal is approved by the House of Commons.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harry Gourlay): With this Amendment we may discuss Amendment No. 18, in page 18, line 26, leave out ' either directly or through a subsidiary'.
No. 19, in line 36, after ' activities ', insert, set up separate subsidiary companies for each activity and
and No. 21, in page 19, line 29, at end insert:
(2) Every annual statement of accounts prepared in pursuance of subsection (1)(b) above shall include particulars of the results of each manufacturing subsidiary company exercising powers under section 48 of the Transport Act. 1968.

Mr. Taylor: This is an important series of Amendments and it is appropriate that we should discuss the four Amendments together. The Transport Act, 1968, gave to the various boards powers of manufacture, supply and repair. The National Ports Authority is given the same powers in Clause 6 of this Bill.
I remind the House of Section 48 of the Transport Act, 1968, which gave power to the various bodies set up under that Act
 to manufacture for sale to outside persons… and to repair for outside persons, anything which the authority consider can advantageously be so manufactured or, as the case may be, repaired by the Authority by reason of the fact that the authority or a subsidiary of theirs have materials or facilities for, or skill in, the manufacture or repair of that thing in connection with some existing activity of that Authority or subsidiary…
The second thing they have power to do is to
 sell to outside persons, and for that purpose to purchase, anything which is of a kind which the authority or a subsidiary of theirs purchase in the course of some existing activity…
The third power is as follows:
 at any place where the Authority, in the exercise of their powers… provide a car park to repair motor vehicles for outside persons, and to sell to outside persons petrol, oil and spare parts and accessories… 
In that Section the nationalised undertakings can if they so wish engage in the manufacture, repair and sale of virtually anything. I challenge the Minister to say if he can think of anything at all which the transport undertakings under the 1968 Transport Act could not do if they so desired.
It might be said that there is nothing wrong with this and why should not the nationalised undertakings have the same manufacturing powers as private industry. This would be a valid argument if the same commercial disciplines were applied

to the private sector as to the public sector. But we know that British Railways for various reasons, some of which were good, had over £1,000 million capital written off, were losing about £150 million a year and then happily because of a financial reconstruction made a surplus. Then there is the National Freight Corporation which, for various reasons, had millions in losses written into its constitution before it employed even one man.
We are in a situation in which nationalised undertakings could undercut private industry and put others out of jobs. We also fear that a nationalised industry might in the short term seek to engage in manufacture, or car repairs or the selling of petrol to subsidise some of their other activities and to hide a loss. These powers are now to be sought for the National Ports Authority.
It should be noted that the opening words of section 48 of the Transport Act, 1968 do not refer to the various authorities having power to manufacture anything they can do profitably or well. They just say
 Anything which the authority consider can advantageously be so manufactured…
It does not say " profitably " or " efficiently " but " advantageously ". I believe that in this context " advantageously " means anything at all.
The Minister emphasised time and again that the ports had big problems in labour relations and in investment. I suggest that they should therefore be concentrating on running the ports in the same way as British Railways should concentrate on trying to improve the railway network. This will take up all the management skill and expertise of the National Ports Authority.
We object in principle to the extension of these powers to the N.P.A. First we object because competition between a nationalised industry and a private firm can never be fair, since the same commercial disciplines are not applied and because capital write-offs are not available in the private sector. Is the Minister prepared to give a guarantee that there will be no capital write-off by the N.P.A.? He must know that many in industry feel that it will be even more essential to have these here than it was with the railways.

Mr. Charles Mapp: I can see the hon. Gentleman's purist argument on the grounds of theory. Has he related what he is saying to the practical effects which are taking place in the ports? I am not unfamiliar with Manchester. In the pursuit of its normal activities as a port it is rendering services to an associated canal company which are advantageous to that company and to the port of Manchester. I am not too familiar with Liverpool, but I think that there are similar arrangements in connection with the Mersey Dock and Harbour Board. If in the running of a port it is highly desirable that the port authority should render such a service to associated firms which is beneficial to all why is the hon. Gentleman so critical about that kind of happy development?

Mr. Taylor: The hon. Member for Oldham, East (Mr. Mapp) made certain constructive criticisms in Committee and I always listen to what he has to say. He must know that the Bill allows all existing activities to be continued and the powers of the various authorities to continue. We are concerned with the extension of the manufacturing powers. He has a point in that there may be some circumstances in which it might be advantageous from all points of view, despite the obvious dangers, for the authorities to do this. This is why we have tabled our Amendment in this way. We have said that we will not take powers away completely but that the N.P.A. and its subsidiaries shall not be empowered to engage in activities under Section 48 of the Transport Act unless in each case an order approving the proposal is passed by the House. We are not saying that it shall not engage in these activities but that the House of Commons should be told and approve. If there is a new extension of manufacturing powers which may be unreasonable, unfair or uneconomic, we should have the chance to look at it.
That is not too much to ask when public money is involved. The hon. Member should remember what have been the practical results of extending nationalised activities. Since this Government came into power we have been writing off the capital of the nationalised industries at the rate of more than £1 million every day, which is an enormous loss. By any comparison prices of nation-

alised industries go up more than the prices in other industries. In all these ways nationalisation is not a good bargain for the country. We now have the situation when I person in 4 works for the Government, nationalised industry or a public authority. That is a higher proportion than in any other country on this side of the Iron Curtain and we ought to think seriously before extending manufacturing powers further. Let us look at each case and, where an extension of manufacturing powers is fair and reasonable, I hope the Minister will accept it.

9.15 p.m.

If the Minister is not able to accept Amendment No. 12, the three Amendments which we are discussing with it are crucial. Amendment No. 19 provides that if a new manufacturing activity is established there should be a separate subsidiary company for that activity. Only in this way shall we know whether that manufacturing activity is operating at a profit or a loss. There is a safeguard that these undertakings must engage in their activities as if they were a commercial enterprise, but this will not, presumably, apply each year comparing one year with another. The only way we shall know whether these manufacturing activities are operating at a profit or a loss is if there is a separate subsidiary company and if, as Amendment No. 21 suggests, there is a separate account in the balance sheet of the N.P.A. for every additional manufacturing subsidy.

Whenever Amendments of this sort have been moved, the Minister has said in reply that the nationalised undertaking will not be engaging in the massive manufacturing activities dreamed up by the Opposition. This happened with the Transport Bill, and we have since heard grisly stories about the manufacturing activities which British Railways have been engaged in. If the Minister maintains that no great use of these powers will be made by the N.P.A., there is no reason under the sun why he should not accept the Amendments. If the activities will be few and far between, why cannot each new activity be reported to and approved by the House, and why should there not be separate companies and separate accounts?

If the Minister is not prepared to accept the Amendments the suspicion will grow


that the nationalised undertakings will consider entering into various manufacturing activities to subsidise losses elsewhere. If those manufacturing activities are engaged in at a loss, the loss may be impossible to identify through the accounts. The simple way of overcoming this would be to apply the Companies Act to the N.P.A. If private companies engage in a separate activity the normal procedure, and in some cases the statutory obligation, is that separate accounts should be supplied. The Minister must know that there can never be fair competition between a nationalised industry and a private firm so long as there is not this safeguard. Surely private industry and the taxpayers are entitled to the safeguards which the Amendments provide.

Sir D. Glover: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow. Cathcart (Mr. Edward M. Taylor) first on his elevation to a position which I have never occupied—I am sure that he will finish his career in the House as Secretary of State—and also on the able way in which he has moved the Amendment. He is a man of great personality, with a great past and a great career in front of him in Parliament.
I wish that we could get away from the arid arguments about nationalisation. I do not agree with nationalisation, and history has shown that it has not attracted the public as much as the Labour Government of 1945 thought it would. The public has discovered that it produces almost as many problems as it solves. I am not thinking that we should denationalise the electricity industry, the coalmines or the gas industry. Certain industries are much more eligible for denationalisation.
But that is not the point. The point is that the party opposite seems to think that there is virtue in turning an organisation into a State corporation and then saying that it has none of the evils of free enterprise. That is absolute rubbish. All the penalties of size applying to free enterprise apply doubly to the nationalised industries. Because of the way in which they were nationalised, the boards of the nationalised industries, interested in the reaction of Parliament and so on, are inhibited from adopting a

ruthless entrepreneurial line. They are always watching what the papers will say. Any chairman of a nationalised board controlling the whole of one segment of our society would consider that he had far too much on his plate to get involved in minor activities on the side.
The party opposite says that Clauses in recent Bills giving manufacturing powers may never be used; but there is a temptation to the boards to use them. Parliament has given the chairmen and boards the job of running some of the biggest organisations in the country. That should involve the full application of the best brains of the nation without their being involved in an extraneous activity that might give them a profit of £200,000 a year.
I wish the House would forget the idea that a nationalised industry must be given such powers. It is wrong to tempt Lord Robens as he has been tempted—

Mr. Speaker: Order. Lord Robens does not come under the National Ports Authority. The hon. Gentleman must relate his remarks to the Amendment.

Sir D. Glover: I entirely accept your Ruling, Mr. Speaker, but I think that it is accepted that a Member can use an example, and we are talking about nationalised industries having the power to manufacture—

Mr. Speaker: Order. We are talking about one nationalised industry; we are talking about the National Ports Authority.

Sir D. Glover: I shall take only a moment, Mr. Speaker. I want to show an example of these powers having been used to the disadvantage of the nation. An old colleague of many of us in the House, Lord Robens, was given those powers. The National Coal Board has gone into manufacturing activities, and in nearly every case he himself would say that they have not been very successful and have turned his and his board's attention from their main job, which is to make the coalmines productive and profitable.
Here we have a new Bill with a new nationalisation problem. The N.P.A. will face many problems. It has a big reorganisation job in front of it. Human


beings being what they are, if it is given the power to enter into a commercial activity that it thinks might produce a profit and perhaps balance a loss, it is an awful temptation to go into a sideline. When the N.P.A. presents its report to Parliament it does not want to say, " We have made an awful nonsense and lost £5 million ". If it could save £1 million on outside activities that would seem a jolly good thing, and it would be a great temptation.
If someone were foolish enough to make me chairman of a nationalised board, I should be very tempted in that way if I had the power. Naturally, I should want to present the best picture that I could to Parliament and the nation, and if I had the power to engage in some outside activity which would bring in a profit that would cancel out other losses, it would be a big temptation. However, the probable result would be that, instead of devoting 100 per cent. of my time to getting the ports right, I would devote 80 per cent. of my time to that and the other 20 per cent. to making a profit on that ancillary industry.
Given that Parliament now accepts that there are nationalised industries, if the board of such an industry is given the responsibility of running its organisation on behalf of the nation, it will not be run as a commercial organisation if a loss in one direction is clouded by a profit in another. The nation wants to know whether the ports of Britain are being run efficiently, economically and with foresight to produce the required answers. The nation does not want to know that the authority has made a profit out of producing, say, smokeless fuel. The nation wants to know what is being done about our ports, just as it wants to know what is being done about the coal mines and the electricity industry. The people are not interested in knowing about some other activity which can be done by someone else.
Once a nationalised board has this sort of power, inevitably its mind is turned away from the problem which it has been given as a statutory duty. It takes the easy line of thinking how it can cushion its performance by producing a profit somewhere else. That is the fundamental argument against giving a statutory board this kind of escape hatch.

Such a board has enough to do. It is given the job of running an organisation which is far bigger than I.C.I. or any other industrial complex in this country with the possible exception of Shell-Mex and B.P. It has far too much to do in running the main organisation for which it is responsible, and we should not allow it to get off the hook by engaging in other activities.
I am afraid that the party opposite is still hag-ridden with the miasma that Parliament has only to nationalise an industry and all its problems are solved and it will run into an Eldorado of lush living. Of course, we all know that that is rubbish. An industry will have as many problems after nationalisation as it had before, and it will need just as much skill to deal with problems as it did before. We all know that, but you, Mr. Speaker, have to sit here and listen to the ideological arguments across the Floor about nationalization—

Mr. Speaker: But not in this debate.

Sir D. Glover: It was a very tempting subject, because we hear them so often.
If the House decides that a nationalised industry is to have the right to manufacture or engage in certain activities outside its main responsibility, the House has the duty to insist that, when the accounts of the board concerned are presented to Parliament, it can make an assessment of whether the ancillary activity is costing the taxpayer money or making a profit. If the proposed Ports Authority engages in an activity which is not directly part of its main responsibility, it should be laid down by this House that the results of the activity should be shown in separate and clear accounts so that hon. Members can assess them. If we find that the Ports Authority is using the taxpayers' money to run an organisation and is not making a profit, I presume that the Government can remove the power and say, " You will no longer carry on this activity. We will accept the loss that you have incurred and tell you to close it down."

9.30 p.m.

I presume that this would be within the powers of the House. We always say that this place is paramount and can do anything—except turn men into women and women into men. Apart from that it


can do anything. But if we pass a Bill which gives a nationalised industry power to carry out activities which, although linked to its main purpose, are subsidiary and ancillary, we should demand that those activities are clearly exposed so that the House can form a judgment upon them.

Amendment No. 19 demands that if the main object is passed, and the National Ports Authority has the power and the right to enter into these slightly outside activities, this House, by law, will lay upon it an obligation to show clearly in each year's accounts, which are brought before the House, the separate activities of the smokeless fuel subsidiary company, the grinding wheel subsidiary company, petrol station, or whatever it is, so that this House can make judgment whether the nationalised industry concerned—in this case the National Ports Authority—is carrying out the duty laid on it to reorganise, manage, and look after our ports and whether its ancillary activities are profitable or loss making.

We have a duty to insist, before the Bill leaves this House, that if we give the National Ports Authority power to undertake manufacturing or other commercial activities they will be shown in its accounts so that the House can form a judgment on them. If the House feels that a mistake has been made tonight it will then have the information and knowledge on which to rescind the powers that it gave.

Mr. Geoffrey Wilson: I support Amendment No. 12, with proposes that the National Ports Authority shall only engage in activities under Section 48 of the Transport Act, 1968, if an order approving it has been approved by this House.
I served on the Committee which dealt with the Transport Act, 1968. Section 48 of that Act gives wide manufacturing powers to the nationalised industries. I will not repeat all the arguments that were deployed then, but it is an exceptionally wide section. I observed at the time that it was so wide that it was comparable to the powers given to the South Africa Company, which Cecil Rhodes described as giving the South Africa Company power to do everything except to make war. Those are the kind of

wide powers proposed in the Bill to be given to the National Ports Authority.
This matter was debated in Committee where it was pointed out that the British Transport Docks Board already had powers of a similar nature. On 5th February I asked the Minister a question to which he was kind enough to give me an answer which did not satisfy the point I wanted to know about. I asked:
 As a matter of interest, has the British Transport Docks Board as existing made any use of Section 48? It would seem a most redundant provision? 
The Minister replied:
 Often when dealing with suppliers one cannot get reasonable terms in a contract, and there is then the possibility that one might manufacture for oneself."—[OFFICIAL REPORT,Standing Committee D, 5th February, 1970; c. 212.]
He pointed out that there had been no abuse of these powers and that what had been feared had not materialised.
That is all very well, but to give powers to a nationalised industry simply to wave about as a threat in order to get good terms in a contract seems to me to be going much beyond what is necessary. If manufacturing powers of a wide nature are necessary to the National Ports Authority I should have thought it was reasonable enough for it to come and ask the House of Commons for such powers; and our Amendment proposes just that —that powers should be included in the Bill in the form in which they are in the Transport Act, 1968. That provision would give the nationalised industry power to do absolutely anything, but it should be restricted so that these powers shall not be used until the approval of this House has been sought and given.
It seems to me that that would give the National Ports Authority an opportunity to ask for any particular powers it wanted, and covers the point made by an hon. Gentleman opposite, that in Manchester certain powers are now being used which are of assistance to users of the Port of Manchester. If any particular powers are wanted by any section of the subsidiary of the National Ports Authority, or the authority itself, it is easy enough for application to be made to this House and an order approving the proposal could come before the House. We should then know what we are doing and that we are not giving an open cheque to


the nationalised industry to do absolutely anything it likes and to claim that it is doing so under powers under Section 48 of the Transport Act, 1968.

Mr. Sydney Bidwell: We are here discussing the fundamentals of the Socialist philosophical approach versus the Tory philosophical approach, but not in the absolute terms that the hon. Gentleman who leads on the Front Bench would have us believe, and certainly no one can say that within the ranks of the Labour Movement, as represented on this side of the House, matters were approached in the doctrinaire way suggested by the hon. Member for Ormskirk (Sir D. Glover).
The reality of the situation is that the National Ports Authority is being given the same kind of freedom that other nationalised industries have been given, namely, freedom to exercise manufacturing power should that authority for various reasons decide to do so. As the hon. Gentleman the Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Edward M. Taylor) said, nationalised enterprises, owned by the nation and operated on behalf of the nation, are not governed by the same crude commercialism by which private enterprise is governed. That is perfectly true; but neither is private enterprise at this present stage of the development of our complex society governed by quite the same kind of commercial disciplines as governed earlier enterprise in the middle of the last century and the beginning of this.
All kinds of props have always had to be afforded for a very long time to any large-scale enterprise. I have in mind the enterprise referred to, on the side, by the hon. Member for Cathcart, namely, the railway industry of which I have considerable and rich experience in my background. This fits in with the general pattern and what hon. Gentlemen opposite want to do is to fetter this great enterprise.

Mr. Geoffrey Wilson: If these powers are given to nationalised industries but are not used by them—which is what the Minister told me in Committee—why give them these carte blanche powers? Why not keep these powers in reserve and give them by means of an order when they are asked for?

Mr. Bidwell: We have argued these matters in the past and we come down on the side of giving freedom knowing that the composition of these authorities is such and that the people who serve on them are such that they will generally do the right and sensible thing and not run off at a tangent and try to vie with private enterprise when it can be shown that private enterprise is more efficient at doing the job. Rather than deal with it in the piecemeal way suggested by hon. Gentlemen opposite I prefer to deal with this in terms of freedom.
There has been a total contradiction in the ideas advanced by hon. Gentlemen opposite, particularly by the hon. Member far Cathcart. He fears the separate entity of accountability and so on, the side play activity one assumes, of the National Ports Authority. On the one hand, he seemed to be afraid that it might appear too profitable and therefore buttress the overall unprofitability of the nationalised enterprise. On the other hand, he seems to be afraid that it might be not efficient and not too profitable because one cannot use non-profitable activity to buttress non-profitable activity generally. That is the total contradiction of the ideas advanced by the hon. Gentleman.
For those two simple reasons I shall have much pleasure in supporting the Government if they decide to reject the Amendment.

Mr. David Waddington (Nelson and Colne): I listened with interest to the arguments advanced by the hon. Member for Southall (Mr. Bidwell). At one stage he suggested that the nationalised industries are not governed by the same crude commercialism as private enterprise. One is inclined to say that perhaps that is the whole trouble, and that that is why they have been such a costly venture for the taxpayer.
The hon. Gentleman wanted to know what our philosophy was. I think that it can be stated in a few words. Hon. Gentlemen opposite are fond of saying that we wish to put every possible obstacle in the way of nationalised industries being profitable. This allegation has been made against us on countless occasions. As one of the taxpayers who have had to suffer numerous blows over recent years, I should be only too happy


if the nationalised industries were profitable, and I am certainly not of that school of thought—if there are any in that school of thought—who would happily put— obstacles in the way of the nationalised industries being profitable if they could be profitable.
Our arguments can be stated perfectly simply. First, we are by no means convinced that there is anything in any of the existing nationalisation Acts to ensure fair competition with private industry. We are by no means convinced that in any nationalisation Measure one can secure oneself against the possibility of there being unfair competition by the nationalised industries against private enterprise.
Second, we have never been convinced —and I should be surprised if I did not get support from some hon. Gentlemen opposite for this view—that these enormous public corporations are the sort of bodies which can most efficiently carry out these functions. I agreed wholeheartedly with the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Ormskirk (Sir D. Glover). All of us in this House acknowledge the enormous task which lies ahead for the National Ports Authority. It is ridiculous to assume that when the authority has all these important functions to carry out it should be tempted to be diverted into these other paths to carry out activities which can so much better be carried out by other organisations.
9.45 p.m.
When one reads Section 48 of the Transport Act, 1968, one can only be amazed by its comprehensive nature. We must be wary indeed before we give that sort of blanket power to another public corporation without even safeguarding for Members of this House the right to say, in any particular case, that before this extension of powers is used by that nationalised industry the whole matter must be debated in this House, and this House can express a view upon it.
Having listened almost throughout the whole of the day to this Report stage, I have been very surprised at some of the contributions which have been made. I was particularly surprised at the number of times we were told my hon. Members opposite that this Measure was necessary in the interests of the port workers. At the risk of offending the susceptibilities

of certain hon. Members opposite, it is necessary to say that the ports really do not exist solely for the edification and delight of the port workers; ports exist for the benefit of the community as a whole.
If in a city such as Manchester one were to speak not to the port workers but the ordinary traders, the people involved in commercial life and local government in that city—ordinary men and women—most of them would say either they did not know what this Bill was about at all or that they certainly did not want another nationalisation measure.

Mr. Speaker: Order. That may or may not be true, but the hon. Gentleman must come to the Amendment.

Mr. Waddington: I certainly will, Mr. Speaker.
In conclusion, if one were then to say to those same people that not only was a new monolithic nationalised corporation to be set up but that that corporation would be allowed to indulge in any sort of manufacturing activity and any type of activity which is carried out by the people of Manchester, then indeed they would throw up, their hands in horror and wonder what on earth we were doing in this House today.
Even if the Government are not prepared to accept an Amendment which would force any extension of manufacturing powers to be discussed in this House, I urge the Minister seriously to consider the other Amendment on the Notice Paper, which would mean that the ordinary member of the public would have a chance of seeing whether or not manufacturing activities to be carried out by this nationalised corporation were profitable and in the interests of the taxpayers.

Mr. Charles Doughty: I do not wish to detain the House from hearing what the Minister has to say on this very important subject but there is a tendency which has crept into modern nationalisation Bills which is to be highly regretted. When we are considering the nationalisation of a particular industry—in principle, of course, I am opposed to it, in the same way as I am opposed to this Bill—the Government suddenly come forward and say that they wish to indulge in any kind of activity


they think fit. It was only a short time ago that this House, despite the opposition of the Conservative Party, gave leave to the Gas Council to indulge in exploration in the North Sea and other places. That was a highly speculative occupation, but, with public funds behind it, the Gas Council are entitled so to do. That is one example.
What is the purpose of giving the National Ports Authority, if it ever comes into existence, the power to indulge in any activity it thinks fit? It can only result in more of the losses which are practically always associated with nationalised industries. The railways have cost us enormous amounts of money, yet they are allowed to manufacture their own articles. Whether they have done so or not is irrelevant—we have given them the power.
Now, the National Ports Authority will have the same power. We are not told what it will manufacture. If it is to have this power it should say, "To carry out our duties under the Bill, we should be able to do so and so". The House would be able to say whether it approved of that or not. Will it manufacture ships or tugs, wharves or dams? We do not know.

Mr. Mapp: Why should it not manufacture tugs? In the Mersey Estuary it is part of the undertaking of both port authorities. One cannot turn a port around without tugs or all sorts of services. It is no good being hyperbolic about this. The authority will want tugs, and if it cannot buy them competitively, it will have to build them itself. It is as simple as that.

Mr. Doughty: It is not as simple as that. That is exactly the danger which is creeping into the Bill. The authority does not own tug docks to build them in and would have to acquire them by purchase or construction. Shipbuilding is highly competitive, and many private firms, too, have lost money. If the N.P.A. goes in with public money to manufacture tugs and ships, the House will have to pay. That is why the authority should explain its reasons, or it should present its accounts to the House so that we can know how much money it is losing by entering a highly competitive industry which is much better done by private enterprise.
I am obliged for that intervention, which emphasises what I have been trying for so long to say. Much as I should like to say more about this proposal, I will leave the Minister to explain it away if he can.

Mr. Mulley: It is a little difficult to reconcile the remarks of the hon. and learned member for Surrey, East (Mr. Doughty)with those of his hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Edward M. Taylor), who had come a little way and said that the party opposite were not opposing the principle of nationalised industries being able to manufacture and carry out other activities for outside firms. But the hon. and learned Member is an unrepentant, old-fashioned Tory and against anything like this. I am surprised, because I had always thought that the hon. Member for Cathcart prided himself on being to the extreme right of his party. But I will not get involved in these party differences.

Mr. Edward M. Taylor: The Minister will agree that I said that I had moved an Amendment to take out the manufacturing powers in Committee, that it was an Amendment which we believed in and supported and voted on but that, because I thought we might have more chance of getting the Minister to accept this Amendment, we had put it down as a reasonable compromise.

Mr. Mulley: I have always had a high opinion of the hon. Member's abilities, and I was hoping that he had learned and profited from the 100 hours we spent together in Committee, but I was wrong, apparently.
The issue is simple. The other powers granted to the whole range of transport industries by the then Minister in the Transport Act of 1968 have been widely recognised as progressive, farsighted and extremely successful. There have been no instances of irresponsible use, as were widely forecast when that Bill was in Committee. The industries concerned have been very responsible and have exercised those powers, as that Act and this Bill lay down, on a commercial basis. Indeed, the hon. Member for Truro (Mr. Geoffrey Wilson) said, rather critically I thought, that the British Transport Docks Board has not set up any large manufacturinig concerns. garages and so on. I thought


he was rather critical that it had not done this.
We may have arguments about aspects of the Bill—but I would not have thought that anyone would seriously contend that the Ports Bill was not also connected with transport, and I can see no reason why the N.P.A. should not have the same powers and responsibilities as the other transport bodies. Indeed, the ports which will come into the National Ports Authority from the British Transport Docks Board have these powers now.
The point is simple. It is intended to put the ports not on any more favoured basis but on exactly the same basis as a public or private company under the Companies Act. The hon. Member for Truro rather disappointed me because I know that he is very experienced in these matters and has the advantage of a long legal career. He knows perfectly well that when a company is set up, its memorandum and articles do not confine the powers which it is seeking to the particular business which it expects to enter into. For practically any company the powers are wide enough to enable it to manufacture aspirins at one end of the alphabet or open a zoo at the other. There is no reason at all why we should not give the public bodies which have a responsibility to Parliament the same powers as are given day by day, practically with no scrutiny, to any private company which is set up.

Mr. Geoffrey Wilson: I referred to the South Africa company with the observation that its articles of association are so wide that it can do practically anything but make war. I thought that we were going as far as that with the nationalised industries and rather farther than that with public companies.

Mr. Mulley: I do not advocate making war either by public or by private companies, but it is right that these powers should be given and that they should be exercised responsibly.
The general approval of the Minister is required under Clause 48. We have had a great song and dance tonight about the activities of the Railways Board which flow from similar provisions in previous legislation. On 8th December I approved and reported to Parliament the proposals

of the Railways Board under Section 48(4) of the Transport Act, 1968. Copies of those approved proposals were placed in the Vote Office, a Press notice was issued and copies were sent to both the C.B.I. and the T.U.C. as required by the Act. So far I have heard of nobody criticising those proposals.
There is no evidence that the existing procedures are in any way unsatisfactory. At Question Time today I said that I was at the carriage and locomotive works of British Railways in Derby 10 days ago and was extremely impressed at the way in which they have gained a wide range of work in competition with private firms. Private firms only really complain because in many cases they are losing orders in competitive tenders because the railway workshops are able to do the job better and more efficiently than some of the private firms.
The only proposition I make is that the competition should be fair. This is in the Bill, but it must be a both-ways arrangement. As in the case of British Railways, it may be appropriate for the National Ports Authority to set up a private company under the Companies Acts to conduct these arrangements. If it does I think it is only right that it should be subject to the same rules and regulations as other companies under the Companies Acts. At the same time, it should not be forced to come to the House or anywhere else for extra permissions or to give information about activities which could well be to its commercial disadvantage. That is not a duty laid upon companies under the Companies Acts.

10.0 p.m.

It is ridiculous to suggest that the House should discuss every single case in which a transport undertaking which is publicly owned wants to use or extend its ability under the Clause in manufacture, repair or supply. I have already made it clear that it is quite wrong that a Minister should seek directly or indirectly to run a nationalised industry, and it would be even more ridiculous to ask this House, with its very full timetable, to give serious scrutiny to all the detailed operations which these boards may have to undertake or which they have the opportunity of undertaking for outside interests.

In any case, some of these opportunities may arise at very short notice. For example, a board may be able to use its dredging equipment for another port and it may be important to be able to make a decision very quickly. The same applies to repair functions. It would be a ludicrous situation if a board had to get an order from the House of Commons before it could use a repair facility it may have been asked for and which was not being fully utilised at the time. The whole proposal is too silly to stand examination.

While the hon. Member for Truro may have thought that I might be more persuaded by these arguments, I regard the Amendments as another attempt to fetter the nationalised industries and to make it difficult for them to compete. They would take away from these industries the power every ordinary company has under the Companies Acts to engage in work which they find convenient to undertake. Equally silly is the idea that these boards should have to set up a subsidary company for each separate activity.

It is well accepted that the day-to-day management of the ports should be exercised not by the National Ports Authority itself but by the individual boards. These Amendments would mean having to have a separate company for each of the port boards if occasionally it did a little repair work or other work for outside interests. Amendment No. 21, which would impose a special form of accounts, would mean undesirable rigidity and complexity in the accounts. Copies of subsidiary companies' reports and accounts, as is the usual practice with other nationalised transport undertakings, will be placed in the Library of the House and, like the other public companies' records, will be available for perusal at the companies registry.

It is right, as my hon. Friend the Member for Southall (Mr. Bidwell) speaking with his considerable experience stated, that the nationalised industries should have the same rights and duties and be accountable in the same way as companies in the private sector, and should be allowed, if it is to their advantage, to manufacture and sell to persons outside on behalf of their own industries. I cannot recommend any of the Amendments

because they are designed to fetter the free, independent operation of our national enterprises.

Mr. Peyton: I came into the Chamber to listen to the right hon. Gentleman defending himself against what seemed to me to be a reasonable Amendment. He concluded his remarks by expressing the sentiments that the same rights and duties should be conferred on nationalised enterprises as are enjoyed by private ones. I assure him that there are many private enterprise concerns which wish devoutly that they could have conferred on them the same privileges as are now enjoyed by public concerns.
The right hon. Gentleman thought it right these these powers should be given to nationalised industries and that they should be exercised responsibly. What assurance do we have that they will be exercised responsibly and that the privileges being conferred are not too great and do not include rights which exempt them from effective competition?
The right hon. Gentleman took some comfort from the fact that notices had been served on the T.U.C. and C.B.I. and that no objection had been taken. When will Ministers and officials learn that the mere fact that people have an opportunity to offer objection to obnoxious practices is not in itself effective because people are tired of making objections and finding their exercise fruitless?
In a moment of candour, the right hon. Gentleman admitted that it is wrong for a Minister to seek to run a nationalised industry. He endeavoured to explain that it was even worse that this House should seek to supervise the affairs of such an industry.

Mr. Mulley: I did not say that one should seek to supervise. I referred to the exercise of what would amount to the detailed scrutiny of an undertaking such as that suggested in the Amendment. I was referring, in other words, to management and not to supervision.

Mr. Peyton: Even a crippled House of Commons—one that has become as much a plaything of the Executive as this one has—is deeply concerned with the way in which the nationalised industries are run. I am sure that none of my hon. Friends on the Opposition Front Bench would presume to say that they could or should run these industries.
We are challenging the ability of Ministers to undertake this exercise. If Ministers cannot do it, who can? To whom will these people be responsible? These are the eternal questions of nationalised industries which remain unanswered. The right hon. Gentleman knows this but he has not answered them tonight. I challenge him to give one example of a nationalised industry that has not enjoyed privileges unknown to private enterprise. Will he speak of one nationalised industry that is able to show a record of satisfaction to its customers? Let him say, at the end of the day, how comfortable are those wretched people who are condemned to travel at nine o'clock on public transport.

Mr. Berry: I hoped at one time that the Minister would give us some new or convincing reasons for opposing these Amendments. I even thought that he might accept them. When he began by trying to show, rather unsuccessfully, that my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Edward M. Taylor) has slightly different views from those of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Surrey, East (Mr. Doughty), I realised that he was trying to cloud the issues by making unsuccessful fun at our expense. He soon saw that that had no effect at all.
The right hon. Gentleman said that he could see no reason for our opposition to the suggestions in this part of the Bill. He must surely know, after the many debates in Committee, how strongly we oppose this suggestion and seek in a small way to make this bad Bill a little less bad. When he tried to hide the issue by talking about dredging and repairs, which anyway are provided for in the Bill through the powers of the superseded authorities, he was dodging the issue, which is why we have in this nationalisation Measure the same blanketing powers we have had year after year each time this Government have

brought in yet one more of these appalling Bills.

In the 1968 Act there were powers to manufacture and supply by the British Waterways Board, which could not possibly wish to use such powers. Last year we had a somewhat better Bill, the Transport (London) Bill, but there again London Transport was given powers which I am sure it did not want. The same mistake is being made with a further extension of such powers. Why should the National Ports Authority have power to run garages and petrol stations, as it will have under this Bill?

When the right hon. Gentleman talks about freedom he should say at whose expense the authority will do these things. I prefer the views of my hon. Friend the Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. Waddington), who was not in the House at the time of the passing of the 1968 Act, but who is here now largely because of the feelings in the country about that Act, not least in the great County of Lancashire. The National Ports Authority will have great powers which, if it is to do well—obviously we hope the ports industry will prosper under the authority although we do not like what is being done—it must concentrate on its own business. It will have a vast amount of work to do and I do not think it will want these powers.

We are trying to make this bad Bill a little less bad. The National Ports Authority must be able to get on with the work it has to do in running the ports business. That is why we think it wholly wrong for the authority to have these extra powers which, willy-nilly, the Government put into every nationalisation Measure. We seek to restore Parliamentary control. I advise my hon. Friends to vote in favour of this Amendment.

Question put, That the Amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes, 172, Noes 251.

Division [No. 109.]
AYES
[10.13] p.m.


Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)
Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton
Blaker, Peter


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Bell, Ronald
Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.)


Archer, Jeffrey (Louth)
Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)
Bossom, Sir Clive


Atkins, Humphrey (M't'n &amp; M'd'n)
Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gos. &amp; Fhm)
Boyd-Carpenter, Rt.Hn. John


Awdry, Daniel
Berry, Hn. Anthony
Brewis, John


Baker, Kenneth (Acton)
Biffen, John
Brinton, Sir Tatton


Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)
Birch, Rt. Hn. Nigel
Bruce-Gardyne, J.


Barber, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Black, Sir Cyril
Bryan, Paul




Buchanan-Smith, Alick(Angus, N &amp; M)
Hogg, Rt. Hn. Quintin
Peyton, John


Buck, Antony (Colchester)
Holland, Philip
Pike, Miss Mervyn


Burden, F. A.
Hordern, Peter
Pounder, Rafton


Campbell, B. (Oldham, W.)
Hornby, Richard
Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch


Campbell, Gordon (Moray &amp; Nairn)
Hunt, John
Price, David (Eastleigh)


Chichester-Clark, R.
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Pym, Francis


Clark, Henry
Iremonger, T. L.
Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David


Cooke, Robert
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Ridley, Hn. Nicholas


Cooper-Key, Sir Neill
Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)
Ridsdale, Julian


Cordle, John
Jennings, J. C. (Burton)
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)


Costain, A. P.
Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)
St. John-Stevas, Norman


Crouch, David
Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)
Scott, Nicholas


Crowder, F. P.
Jopling, Michael
Scott-Hopkins, James


Cunningham, Sir Knox
Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith
Sharpies, Richard


Currie, G. B. H.
King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)
Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh &amp; Whitby)


Dalkeith, Earl of
King, Tom
Sinclair, Sir George


Dance, James
Kirk, Peter
Smith, Dudley (W'wick &amp; L'mington)


Dean, Paul
Kitson, Timothy
Smith, John (London &amp; W'minster)


Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F. (Ashford)
Knight, Mrs. Jill
Speed, Keith


Dodds-Parker, Douglas
Lambton, Antony
Stainton, Keith


Doughty, Charles
Lancaster, Col. C. G
Stodart, Anthony


Drayson, G.B 
Lane, David
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M.


du Cann, Rt Hn Edware
Langford-Holt, Sir John
Tapsell, Peter


Elliott, R. W. (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, N.)
Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)


Emery, Peter
Lloyd, Ian (P'tsm'th, Langstone)
Taylor, Edward M.(G'gow, Cathcart)


Errington, Sir Eric
McMaster, Stanley
Temple, John M.


Eyre, Reginald
Macmillan, Maur'ce (Farnham)
Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret


Farr, John
McNair-Wilson, Michael
Tilney, John


Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
McNair-Wilson, Patrick (New Forest)
Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.


Fortescue, Tim
Maginnis, John E.
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Foster, Sir John
Maude, Angus
Vickers, Dame Joan


Fry, Peter
Mawby, Ray
Waddington, David


Galbraith, Hn. T. G.
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek


Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)
Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C.
Wall, Patrick


Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)
Mills, Peter (Torrington)
Walters, Dennis


Glover, Sir Douglas
Miscampbell, Norman
Ward, Christopher (Swindon)


Goodnart, Philip
Montgomery, Fergus
Ward, Dame Irene


Gower, Raymond
More, Jasper
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Grant, Anthony
Morgan, Geralnt (Denbigh)
Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William


Grieve, Percy
Morrison, Charles (Devizes)
Williams, Donald (Dudley)


Gurden, Harold
Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Had, John (Wycombe)
Munro-Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
Murton, Oscar
Woodnutt, Mark


Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Nabarro, Sir Gerald
Worsley, Marcus


Harrison, Brian (Maldon)
Neave, Alrey
Wright, Esmond


Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)
Nlcholls, Sir Harmar
Younger, Hn. George


Hawkins, Paul
Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael



Heald, Rt. Hn. Sir Lionel
Onslow, Cranley
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Heseltine, Michael
Pearson, Sir Frank (Clitheroe)
Mr. Walter Clegg and


Hiley, Joseph
Peel, John
Mr. Hector Monro.


Hill, J. E. B.




Hirst, Geoffrey






NOES


Albu, Austen
Brown,Bob (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, W.)
Dell, Rt. Hn. Edmund


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Brown, R. W. (Shoreditch &amp; F'bury)
Dewar, Donald


Alldritt, Walter
Buchan, Norman
Diamond, Rt. Hn. John


Allen, Scholefield
Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn)
Doig, Peter


Anderson, Donald
Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Driberg, Tom


Archer, Peter (R'wley Regis &amp; Tipt'n)
Cant, R. B.
Dunn, James A.


Armstrong, Ernest
Carmichael, Neil
Eadle, Alex


Ashley, Jack
Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara
Edelman, Maurice


Atkins, Ronald (Preston, N.)
Chapman, Donald
Ellis, John


Atkinson, Norman (Tottenham)
Coe, Denis
English, Michael


Bacon, Rt. Hn. Alice
Coleman, Donald
Ennals, David


Bagier, Gordon A. T
Concannon, J. D.
Evans, loan L. (Birm'h'm, Yardley)


Barnett, Joel
Conlan, Bernard
Finch, Harold


Baxter, William
Craddock, George (Bradford, S)
Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)


Beaney, Alan
Crawshaw, Richard
Foley, Maurice


Bence, Cyril
Cronin, John
Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)


Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood
Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Ford, Ben


Bennett, James (G'gow, Bridgeton)
Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard
Forrester, John


Bidwcll, Sydney
Dalyell, Tam
Fowler, Gerry


Binns, John
Darling, Rt. Hn. George
Fraser, John (Norwood)


Bishop, E. S.
Davidson, Arthur (Accrington)
Galpern, Sir Myer


Blackburn, F.
Davidson, James(Aberdeenshire, W.)
Garrett, W. E.


Booth, Albert
Davies, E. Hudson (Conway)
Ginsburg, David


Boston, Terence
Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
Golding, John


Bottomley, Rt. Hn, Arthur
Davies, Dr. Ernest (Stretford)
Gordon Walker, Rt. Hn. P. C.


Boyden, James
Davies, Rt. Hn. Harold (Leek)
Gray, Dr. Hugh (Yarmouth)


Bradley, Tom
Davies, I for (Gower)
Greenwood, Rt. Hn. Anthony


Bray, Dr. Jeremy
Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
Gregory, Arnold


Brown, Rt. Hn. George (Belper)
de Freltas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey
Grey, Charles (Durham)


Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)
Delargy, H. J 
Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)







Griffiths, Will (Exchange)
Macdonald, A. H.
Price, William (Rugby)


Grimond, Rt. Hn. J.
McElhone, Frank
Probert, Arthur


Gunter, Rt. Hn. R. J.
McGuire, Michael
Randall, Harry


Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
McKay, Mrs. Margaret
Rankin, John


Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)
Mackenzie, Alasdair(Ross &amp; Crom'ty)
Rees, Merlyn


Hannan, William
Mackenzie, Gregor (Rutherglen)
Rhodes, Geoffrey


Harper, Joseph
Mackie, John
Roberts, Rt. Hn, Goronwy


Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Mackintosh, John P.
Roberts, Gwilym (Bedfordshire, S.)


Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith
Maclennan, Robert
Robertson, John (Paisley)


Haseldine, Norman
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)
Robinson, Rt Hn Kenneth(St. P'c' as)


Hattersley, Roy
MacPherson, Malcolm
Rodgers, William(Stockton)


Hazell, Bert
Mahon, Peter (Preston, S.)
Rose, Paul


Heffer, Eric S.
Mahon, Simon (Bootle)
Ross, Rt. Hn. William


Henig, Stanley
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Rowlands, E.


Herbison, Rt. Hn. Margaret
Mallalieu, J.P.W.(Huddersfield, E.)
Sheldon, Robert


Hilton, W. S.
Mapp, Charles
Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)


Hobden, Dennis
Marquand, David
Sillars, J.


Hooley, Frank
Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy
Silverman, Julius


Homer, John
Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert
Slater, Joseph


Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Mendelson, John
Small, William


Howarth, Robert (Bolton, E.)
Mikardo, lan
Snow, Julian


Howie, W.
Millan, Bruce
Spriggs, Leslie


Hoy, Rt. Hn. James
Miller, Dr. M. S.
Steel David (Roxburgh)


Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Mitchell, R. C. (S'th'pton, Test)
Steele, Thomas (Dunbartonshire, W.)


Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Moonman, Eric
Stonehouse, Rt. Hn. John


Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)
Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley


Hunter, Adam
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)
Swain, Thomas


Hynd, John
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)
Taverne, Dick


Irvine, Rt. Hn. Sir Arthur
Morris, John (Aberavon)
Thornton, Ernest


Jackson, Colin (B'h'se &amp; Spenb'gh)
Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick
Tinn, James


Janner, Sir Barnett
Murray, Albert
Tomney, Frank


Jeger, Mrs.Lena(H'b'n &amp; St.P'cras, S.)
Neal, Harold
Wainwright, Richard (Coins Valley)


Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Newens, Stan
Walden, Brian (All Saints)


Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.)
Oakes, Gordon
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Ogden, Eric
Wallace, George


Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, West)
O'Halloran, Michael
Watkins, Tudor (Brecon &amp; Radnor)


Judd, Frank
O'Malley, Brian
Weitzman, David


Kenyon, Clifford
Oram, Bert
Wellbeloved, James


Kerr, Mrs. Anne (R'ter &amp; Chatham)
Orbach, Maurice
Whitaker, Ben


Kerr, Dr. David (W'worth, Central)
Orme, Stanley
White, Mrs. Eirene


Kerr, Russell (Feltham)
Oswald, Thomas
Whitlock, William


Latham, Arthur
Page, Derek (King's Lynn)
Wilkins, W. A.


Lawson, George
Paget, R. T.
Williams, Alan Lee (Hornchurch)


Leadbitter, Ted
Palmer, Arthur
Williams, Clifford (Abertillery)


Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick (Newton)
Panned, Rt. Hn. Charles
Willis, Rt. Hn. George


Lever, Rt. Hn. Harold (Cheetham)
Pardoe, John
Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)


Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)
Parker, John (Dagenham)
Winnick, David


Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Parkyn, Brian (Bedford)
Winstanley, Dr. M, P.


Lomas, Kenneth
Pavitt, Laurence
Woodburn, Rt. Hn. A.


Loughlin, Charles
Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)
Woof, Robert


Lubbock, Eric
Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred
Wyatt, Woodrow


Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)
Pentland, Norman



Mabon Dr. J. Dickson
Perry, Ernest G. (Battersea, S.)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


McCann, John
Perry, George H. (Nottingham, S.)
Mr. R F. H. Dobson and


MacColl, James
Price, Christopher (Perry Barr)
Mr. Neil McBride.

Clause 7

ADDITIONAL POWERS OF NATIONAL PORTS AUTHORITY

Mr. Edward M. Taylor: I beg to move Amendment No. 13, in page 10, line 45, at end insert:—
(c) in exercising the powers specified in (a) and (b) above, the Authority shall not engage in activities which were not undertaken by the superseded authorities unless an order authorising such extension of activities is approved by the Commons House of Parliament.
In a period of five minutes we have to debate one of the most important Amendments to this Bill simply because a great deal of our time has been taken up with an Amendment put forward by supporters of the Government—[Interrup

tion]—on which they decided not to vote after two hours discussion.

Mr. Speaker: Order. We have had a quiet debate; there is no need to disturb it.

Mr. Taylor: The Bill is a major extension of nationalisation in a country where a larger proportion of the working population works for public authorities than in any country outside the Iron Curtain.
We have just finished discussing an Amendment dealing with the powers of the N.P.A. to manufacture anything under the sun. The Amendment we are now discussing is designed to restrict the powers of the N.P.A. to set up warehousing, shipping and transport facilities


without any practical limitation. Because of the guillotine, and the blatant attempt by hon. Members on the Government side to use up the scarce time of the House, we have only five minutes in which to discuss this serious issue—[Interruption] If the hon. Member for Bristol, Northwest (Mr. Ellis) does not think it important, let him bear in mind what this extension of powers will mean to the port workers of Bristol.

Mr. Ellis: The hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Edward M. Taylor) has been encouraging his hon. Friends to make speeches and whipping them into the Chamber, and to speak as he does is arrogant nonsense.

Mr. Taylor: The hon. Gentleman must be aware that this is blatant nonsense. Hon. Members on the Conservative side in the Amendments they have put down and in the speeches they have made have used the utmost restraint. There are key issues still to be debated—[Interruption]

Mr. Speaker: Order. When the hon. Member for Bristol, North-West (Mr. Ellis) spoke he was listened to. He must listen now.

Mr. Taylor: The hon. Gentleman must be aware, and so must every other hon. Member, that because of the Guillotine we have only minutes in which to deal with key issues affecting Manchester and many other ports and the jobs of thousands of dock workers. We are considering a major extension of nationalisation, and there can never be fair competition between a nationalised industry and the private sector. The Chief Secretary to the Treasury recently gave me an answer which showed that nationalised industries have been writing off capital at the rate of more than £1 million every day of the week since the Government came to power. What private firm has

this right? The more the manufacturing powers of nationalised industry are extended, the less is the opportunity for fair and free competition and the greater will be the economic mess into which the country is being plunged. This will mean more taxation, greater losses, and more writing off of capital. This is the price of Socialism and this is what we bitterly oppose.

If the Government were concerned for the well-being of Britain and of those who are employed in the industry they would allow the National Ports Authority to concentrate on the great problems which face it. We have seen from the White Paper " In Place of Strife ", now abandoned by the Government, the desperate position of labour relations in the ports. The Amendment suggests that the authority should limit its activities to sorting out the ports and not engage in manufacturing, warehousing, shipping and other activities. The Amendment is designed to restrict Socialism, and I hope that the House will support it.

Mr. Mulley: I cannot recommend the House to accept the Amendment because to bring every question of manufacturing, warehousing and storage to the Floor of the House would be a nonsense and would be the most ridiculous exercise of management functions by the House.
The hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Edward M. Taylor) complained of lack of time. I remind the House that we had 94 hours in Committee and that every single Amendment, every single Clause and every single Schedule was debated.

Question put, That the Amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 175, Noes 250.

Division No.[110.]
AYES
[10.30] p.m.


Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)
Biffen, John
Burden, F. A.


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Birch, Rt. Hn. Nigel
Campbell, B. (Oldham, W.)


Amery, Rt. Hn. Julian
Black, Sir Cyril
Campbell, Gordon (Moray &amp; Nairn)


Archer, Jeffrey (Louth)
Blaker, Peter
Chichester-Clark, R.


Atkins, Humphrey (M't'n &amp; M'd'n)
Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.)
Clark, Henry


Awdry, Daniel
Bossom, Sir Clive
Clegg, Walter


Baker, Kenneth (Acton)
Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John
Cooke, Robert


Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)
Boyle, Rt. Hn. Sir Edward
Cooper-Key, Sir Neill


Barber, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Brewis, John
Cordle, John


Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton
Brinton, Sir Tatton
Costain, A. P.


Bell, Ronald
Bruce-Gardyne, J.
Crouch, David


Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)
Bryan, Paul
Crowder, F. P.


Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gos. &amp; Fhm)
Buchanan-Smith, Alick(Angus, N &amp; M)
Cunningham, Sir Knox


Berry, Hn. Anthony
Buck, Antony (Colchester)
Currie, G. B. H.




Dalkeith, Earl of
Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)
Pym, Francis


Dance, James
Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)
Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David


Dean, Paul
Jopling, Michael
Ridley, Hn. Nicholas


Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F. (Ashford)
Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith
Ridsdale, Julian


Dodds-Parker, Douglas
King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)


Doughty, Charles
King, Tom 
St. John-Stevas, Norman


Drayson, G. B.
Kirk, Peter
Scott, Nicholas


du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward
Kitson, Timothy
Scott-Hopkins, James


Elliott, R.W.(NV tie-up on-Tyne,N.)
Knight, Mrs. Jill
Sharpies, Richard


Emery, Peter
Lambton, Antony
Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh &amp; whitby)


Errington, Sir Eric
Lancaster, Col. C. G.
Sinclair, Sir George


Eyre, Reginald
Lane, David
Smith, Dudley (W 'wick &amp; L'mington)


Farr, John
Langford-Holt, Sir John
Smith, John (London &amp; W'minster)


Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry
Speed, Keith


Fortescue, Tim
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Stainton, Keith


Foster, Sir John
Lloyd, lan (P'tsm'th, Langstone)
Stodart, Anthony


Galbraith Hn. T. G.
Macmillan, Maurice (Farnham)
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M.


Gilmour, lan (Norfolk, C.)
McNair-Wilson, Michael
Tapsell, Peter


Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)
McNair-Wilson, Patrick (New Forest)
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)


Glover, Sir Douglas
Maginnis, John E.
Taylor, Edward M.(G'gow, Cathcart)


Goodhart, Philip
Maude, Angus
Temple, John M.


Gower, Raymond
Mawby, Ray
Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret


Grant, Anthony
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Tilney, John


Grieve, Percy
Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C.
Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.


Gurden, Harold
Mills, Peter (Torrington)
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Hall, John (Wycombe)
Miscampbell, Norman
Vickers, Dame Joan


Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
Montgomery, Fergus
Waddington, David


Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)
Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek


Harrison, Brian (Maldon)
Morrison, Charles (Devizes)
Wall, Patrick


Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)
Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles
Walters, Dennis


Hawkins, Paul
Munro-Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Ward, Christopher (Swindon)


Heald, Rt. Hn. Sir Lionel
Murton, Oscar
Ward, Dame Irene


Heseltine, Michael
Nabarro, Sir Gerald
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Hiley, Joseph
Neave, Airey
Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William


Hill, J. E. B.
Nicholls, Sir Harmar
Williams, Donald (Dudley)


Hirst, Geoffrey
Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Hogg, Rt. Hn. Quintin
Nott, John
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


Holland, Philip
Onslow, Cranley
Woodnutt, Mark


Hordern, Peter
Pearson, Sir Frank (Clltheroe)
Worsley, Marcus


Hornby, Richard
Peel, John
Wright, Esmond


Hunt, John
Peyton, John
Younger, Hn. George


Hutchison, Michael Clark
Pike, Miss Mervyn



Iremonger, T. L.
Pounder, Rafton
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch
Mr. Hector Monro and


Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)
Price, David (Eastleigh)
Mr. Jasper More.


Jennings, J. C. (Burton)






NOES


Albu, Austen
Carmichael, Neil
Evans, loan L. (Birm'h'm, Yardley)


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara
Finch, Harold


Alldritt, Walter
Chapman, Donald
Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)


Allen, Scholefield
Coe, Denis
Foley, Maurice


Archer, Peter (R'wley Regis &amp; Tipt'n)
Coleman, Donald
Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)


Armstrong, Ernest
Concannon, J. D.
Ford, Ben


Ashley, Jack
Conlan, Bernard
Forrester, John


Atkins, Ronald (Preston, N.)
Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Fowler, Gerry


Atkinson, Norman (Tottenham)
Crawshaw, Richard
Fraser, John (Norwood)


Bacon, Rt. Hn. Alice
Cronin, John
Galpern, Sir Myer


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Garrett, W. E.


Barnett, Joel
Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard
Ginsburg, David


Baxter, William
Dalyell, Tam
Golding, John


Beaney, Alan
Darling, Rt. Hn. George
Gordon Walker, Rt. Hn. P. C.


Bence, Cyril
Davidson, Arthur (Accrington)
Gray, Dr. Hugh (Yarmouth)


Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood
Davidson, James(Aberdeenshire, W.)
Greenwood, Rt. Hn. Anthony


Bennett, James (G'gow, Bridgeton)
Davies, E. Hudson (Conway)
Gregory, Arnold


Bidwell, Sydney
Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
Grey, Charles (Durham)


Binns, John
Davies, Dr. Ernest (Stretford)
Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)


Bishop, E. S.
Davies, Rt. Hn. Harold (Leek)
Griffiths, Will (Exchange)


Blackburn, F.
Davies, I for (Gower)
Grimond, Bt. Hn. J.


Booth, Albert
Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
Gunter, Rt. Hn. R. J.


Boston, Terence
de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)


Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur
Delargy, H. J.
Hamilton, William (Fife, w.)


Boyden, James
Dell, Rt. Hn. Edmund
Hannan, William


Bradley, Tom
Dewar, Donald
Harper, Joseph


Bray, Dr. Jeremy
Diamond, Rt. Hn. John
Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith


Brown, Rt. Hn. George (Belper)
Doig, Peter
Haseldine, Norman


Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)
Driberg, Tom
Hattersley, Roy


Brown, Bob(N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, W.)
Dunn, James A.
Hazell, Bert


Brown, R. W. (Shoreditch &amp; F'bury)
Eadie, Alex
Heffer, Eric S.


Buchan, Norman
Edelman, Maurice
Henig, Stanley


Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn)
Ellis, John
Herbison, Rt. Hn. Margaret


Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
English, Michael
Hilton, W. S.


Cant, R. B.
Ennals, David
Hobden, Dennis







Hooley, Frank
MacPherson, Malcolm
Roberts, Rt. Hn. Goronwy


Horner, John
Mahon, Peter (Preston, S.)
Roberts, Gwllym (Bedfordshire, S.)


Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Mahon, Simon (Bootle)
Robertson, John (Paisley)


Howarth, Robert (Bolton, E.)
Mallalfeu, E. L. (Brigg)
Robinson, Rt.Hn.Kenneth(St. P'c'as)


Howie, W.
Mallalieu, J.P.W(Huddersfield, E.)
Rodgers, William (Stockton)


Hoy, Rt. Hn. James
Mapp, Charles
Rose, Paul


Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Marquand, David
Ross, Rt. Hn. William


Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy
Rowlands, E.


Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Maxwell, Robert
Sheldon, Robert


Hunter, Adam
Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert
Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)


Hynd, John
Mendelson, John
Sillars, J.


Irvine, Rt. Hn. Sir Arthur
Mikardo, Ian
Silverman, Julius


Jackson, Colin (B'h'se &amp; Spenb'gh)
Milian, Bruce
Slater, Joseph


Jackson, Peter M. (High Peak)
Miller, Dr. M. S.
Small, William


Janner, Sir Barnett
Mitchell, R. C. (S'th'pton, Test)
Snow, Julian


Jeger, Mrs.Lena(H'b'n &amp; St.P'cras, S.)
Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)
Spriggs, Leslie


Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)
Steel, David (Roxburgh)


Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.)
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)
Steele, Thomas (Dunbartonshire, W.)


Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Morris, John (Aberavon)
Stonehouse, Rt. Hn. John


Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, West)
Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick
Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley


Judd, Frank
Murray, Albert
Swain, Thomas


Kenyon, Clifford
Neal, Harold
Taverne, Dick


Kerr, Mrs. Anne (R'ter &amp; Chatham)
Newens, Stan
Thornton, Ernest


Kerr, Dr. David (W'worth, Central)
Oakes, Gordon
Tinn, James


Kerr, Russell (Feitham)
Ogden, Eric
Tomney, Frank


Latham, Arthur
O'Halloran, Michael
Wainwright, Richard (Colne Valley)


Lawson, George
O'Malley, Brian
Walden, Brian (Alt Saints)


Leadbitter, Ted
Oram, Bert
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Lever, Rt. Hn. Frederick (Newton)
Orbach, Maurice
Wallace, George


Lever, Rt. Hn. Harold (Cheetham)
Orme, Stanley
Watkins, Tudor (Brecon &amp; Radnor)


Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)
Oswald, Thomas
Weitzman, David


Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Page, Derek (King's Lynn)
Weltbeloved, James


Lomas, Kenneth
Paget, R. T.
Whitaker, Ben


Loughlin, Charles
Palmer, Arthur
White, Mrs. Eirene


Lubbock, Eric
Pardoe, John
Whitlock, William


Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)
Parker, John (Dagenham)
Wilkins, W. A.


Mabon Dr. J. Dickson
Parkyn, Brian (Bedford)
Williams, Alan Lee (Hornchurch)


McBride, Neil
Pavitt, Laurence
Williams, Clifford (Abertillery)


McCann, John
Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)
Willis, Rt. Hn. George


MacColl, James
Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred
Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)


Macdonald, A. H.
Pentland, Norman
Winnick, David


McElhone, Frank
Perry, Ernest G. (Battersea, S.)
Winstanley, Dr. M. P.


McGuire, Michael
Perry, George H. (Nottingham, S.)
Woodburn, Rt. Hn. A.


McKay, Mrs. Margaret
Price, Christopher (Perry Barr)
Woof, Robert


Mackenzie, Alasdair(Ross &amp; Crom'ty)
Price, William (Rugby)
Wyatt, Woodrow


Mackenzie, Gregor (Rutherglen)
Probert, Arthur



Mackie, John
Randall, Harry
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Mackintosh, John P.
Rankin, John
Mr. R. F. H. Dobson and


Maclennan, Robert
Rees, Merlyn
Mr. Walter Harrison.


McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)
Rhodes, Geoffrey

It being after half-past Ten o'clock, Mr. SPEAKERproceeded, pursuant to the Order this day, to put forthwith the Questions on the Amendments, moved by a member of the Government, of which notice had been given.

Clause 8

APPLICATION AND ADAPTATION OF ENACTMENTS RELATING TO POWERS AND DUTIES OF SUPERSEDED AUTHORITIES

Amendments made: No 14, in page 13, line 16 leave out ' otherwise unsatisfactory ' and insert ' confusing '.

No. 15, in line 40 at end insert:
(8) If at the vesting date any action has been taken by a superseded authority for the purpose of promoting a Bill in Parliament providing exclusively for matters relating to powers and duties which by virtue of this section be-

come powers and duties of the National Ports Authority, the National Ports Authority may, with the consent of the Minister, proceed with the promotion of that Bill as if that action had been taken by them with the consent of the Minister under section 17 of the Transport Act 1962 as applied by section 6 of this Act.—[Mr. Mulley]

Clause 10

HARBOUR POLICE

Amendment made: No. 16, in page 16, line 33, at end insert:

(4) As regards constables employed by the National Ports Authority as mentioned in subsection (3) above the Authority shall be under the duty to seek consultation with any organisation appearing to the Authority to be appropriate with a view to the conclusion between the Authority and the organisation of such agreements or further agreements as appear to the parties to be desirable with respect to the establishment and maintenance of machinery for achieving in relation to constables so employed the purposes mentioned in subsection


(2)(a) to (c) of section 41 of this Act; and in subsections (5) and (6) of that section the references to that section shall include references to this subsection.—[Mr. Motley]

Clause 14

DUTIES OF NATIONAL PORTS AUTHORITY IN REGARD TO ACCOUNTS AND ANNUAL REPORTS

Amendment made: No. 20, in page 19, line 29, at end insert:
(2) Every annual statement of accounts prepared in pursuance of subsection (1)(b) above shall include particulars of the financial results of the activities of each port board.—[Mr. Motley]

Clause 15

GENERAL PROVISION FOR TRANSFER OF UNDERTAKINGS

Amendments made: No. 23, in page 22, line 22, leave out the money ' and insert:
'any money to which the agreement relates '.

No. 24, in line 25, at end insert:
'except any liability in respect of money borrowed or raised before that date '.—[Mr. Mulley]

Clause 16

DISSOLUTION OF BRITISH TRANSPORT DOCKS BOARD AND PORT TRUSTS, AND RELATED PROVISIONS

Amendmends made: No. 26, in page 24, line 20, leave out from section ' to as ' in line 21 and insert:
177(1) of the Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1970 '.

No. 27, line 28, leave out ' 58(2) ' and insert 177(2) '.

No. 28, in line 30, leave out from beginning to which ' in line 31 and insert:
section 352(4) and (5) of that Act '.

No. 29, in line 35, at end insert:
and
(c) for the purposes of paragraph 6 of Schedule 14 to that Act (transitional provisions as to allowance of annual value of land as business expense) any occupation of land for the purposes of the trade by the superseded authority shall be treated as having been the occupation of the National Ports Authority;

No. 30, in page 25, line 2, leave out from section ' to first for ' in line 3 and insert:
'265(1) of the Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1970'.

No. 31, in line 22, at end insert:
Provided that if, in the case of any superseded authority which is so dissolved, a financial year of that authority ends with the day before the vesting date, the foregoing provisions of this subsection, so far as applicable, shall, with the necessary modifications, apply with respect to that financial year as they would have applied with respect to the final financial period of that superseded authority if the vesting date had fallen before the end of that financial year.—[Mr. Mulley]

Clause 21

DISPOSAL 0F SUMS PAID TO, AND DISSOLUTION OF, COMPANIES OTHER THAN COMPOSITE COMPANIES, AND RELATED PROVISIONS

Amendment made: No. 36, in page 32, line 9, at end insert:
(4) All liability of a company and of its directors in respect of any securities of the company shall cease on payment by the company in accordance with this section of all sums falling to be paid by it under this section in respect of those securities.—[Mr. Mulley]

Clause 22

DIVISION OF UNDERTAKING OF COMPOSITE COMPANY, AND ADJUSTMENT OF COMPENSATION ETC.

Amendment made: No 38, in page 35, line 16, leave out prescribed by ' and insert determined by or in accordance with '—[Mr. Mulley]

Clause 23

CLAIM BY COMPOSITE COMPANY NOT TO BE TREATED AS SUCH, OR TO TRANSFER ADDITIONAL PART OF ITS BUSINESS.

Amendment made: No. 40, in page 36, line 28, leave out one month ' and insert two months '—[Mr. Mulley]

Clause 24

HARBOURS EXCEPTED FROM SECTION 1(3)(b).

Amendments made: No. 42, in page 36, line 36, leave out for the purpose, and only ' and insert solely or mainly '.

No. 43, in line 37, leave out ' which either ' and insert ' of either or both of the following descriptions, that is to say goods which '.

No. 44, in line 38, at end insert which '.

No. 45, in page 37, line 2, after Minister ' insert '(i)

No. 46, in line 3, after ' company ', insert having a share capital (not being a company limited by guarantee) '.

No. 47, in line 7, leave out companies ' and insert bodies corporate '.

No. 48, in line 11, at end insert:
(ii)where a harbour is owned or managed by a company limited by guarantee (whether or not having a share capital), there shall be treated as carried on by the company any activities of manufacture or production of the members of the company, or such part as may be so prescribed of those activities; and
(iii)where a harbour is owned or managed by an unincorporated body of persons, there shall be treated as carried on by that body any activities of manufacture or production of the members of the body, or such part as may be so prescribed of those activities.

No. 49, in line 23, at end insert:
(4) Regulations made under this section may be, to any degree, specific or general, and may make different provision for different cases or classes of cases and for other different circumstances.—[Mr. Mulley]

Clause 26

ADAPTATION OF RIGHTS UNDER SECURITIES ETC. OF SUPESEDED AUTHORITIES

Amendment made: No. 52, in page 39, line 38, at end insert:
(4) Where subsection (1) above applies to liabilities of the Authority in respect of any securities, being securities to which this subsection has been applied by a direction of the Treasury, transfers of those securities shall be exempt from all stamp duties.—[Mr. Mulley]

Clause 27

REPAYMENT OF, AND PAYMENT OF INTEREST ON, CERTAIN DEBTS AND LOANS TRANSFERRED TO NATIONAL PORTS AUTHORITY

Amendments made: No. 53, in page 40, line 5, at end insert:
(b) any loan made to a harbour authority under section 11 of the Harbours Act 1964;.

No. 54, in line 24, after ' Act ', insert section 43(1) of the Harbours Act 1964 '.

No. 55, in line 24, after ' 41(4),' insert or (5) '

No. 56, in line 36, at end insert:
(5) In so far as section 20(2) of the Transport Act, 1962, as applied by section 6 of this Act, applies by virtue of subsection (1) above to a debt falling within paragraph (c) or (d) of subsection (2) above (with the result that, by virtue of section 13(2) of this Act, sums received by the Minister by way of repayment of, or interest on, the debt are required to be dealt with in accounts prepared by the Minister under section 44(1) of the Transport Act 1968) then—

(a)in the case of a debt falling within the said paragraph (c), subsection (10) of section 41 of the Docks and Harbours Act 1966 (which requires the Minister to prepare accounts in respect of debts to him assumed under section 41) shall not apply to that debt or to any sum received by the Minister by way of repayment of, or interest on, that debt; and
(b)in the case of a debt falling within the said paragraph (d), so much of any enactment of local application relating to that debt as makes provision corresponding to that made by the said subsection (10) shall not apply to that debt or to any sum received by the Minister by way of repayment of, or interest on, that debt.—[Mr. Mulley]

Clause 28

RIGHT OF PRE-EMPTION OF SUPERSEDED AUTHORITIES, BEING LOCAL COUNCILS OR COMPOSITE COMPANIES

Amendment made: No. 57, in page 41, line 4, leave out discharge of their functions ' and insert purposes of their business '—[Mr. Mulley]

Clause 32

OTHER PROVISIONS CONSEQUENTIAL ON OR SUPPLEMENTAL TO SECTIONS 29 AND 30

Amendments made: No. 59, in page 47, line 2, leave out from section ' to and ' and insert:
'353 of the Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1970 '.

No. 60, in line 7, leave out and (b)' and insert to (c) '.—[Mr. Mulley]

Further consideration of the Bill, as amended, adjourned.—[Mr. Harper]

Bill, as amended, to be further considered tomorrow

ULSTER DEFENCE REGIMENT (MR. T. NICHOLL)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Harper]

10.42 p.m.

Mr. R. Chichester-Clark: I am very much obliged to the Minister for coming to the House at this late hour.
The case which I wish to raise concerns a 37-year-old man, Mr. Thompson Nicholl, who lives at No. 2 Gulf Road, Killaloo, Claudy, Co. Londonderry. The Ministry of Defence is involved in this case because the man of whom I shall speak was a member of the U.S.C., in which he was a sergeant, and had been a member of the force for about 131 years. He applied to the U.D.R. and was turned down, with certain unhappy consequences for himself.
That in itself would not be enough to justify my raising the matter in the House, because I fully accept the right of the Ministry of Defence to turn down an applicant, as indeed it does for the Army, without giving any reason whatsoever. But Mr. Nicholl is a man who is jealous of his reputation and good name. Perhaps it would be convenient at this stage to say something about his background, since it gives the picture of the man whom we are discussing tonight.
He was for many years the sexton of his church, and he is now people's churchwarden in his present church, a position which may be described as one of the highest honours which parishioners can give to one of their number. He was formerly employed by a firm in Craig Claudy for about 20 years, and was wholly satisfactory. He is now employed by the Londonderry Development Commission.
He would like his name cleared of a certain serious stigma which surrounds it. I have warned him of the risks involved to him in my raising the matter in the House, but so strongly does he feel that in the interests of his integrity he wants me to raise it and do what I can for him.
As the Minister will guess, I have had certain reservations about raising the

matter, because the last thing that I want to do, believing as I do in encouraging the Ulster Defence Regiment, is to have it become something of a political football in this House. But my judgment, based on intimate knowledge of the area, is that it will be beneficial to clear the air over this case. It may even do some good to recruiting.
This case is typical of the cases of many other people living in the same area. Obviously, I cannot mention them all by name but many of them have suffered in the same way as Mr. Nicholl. I hope that the Minister and I will between us be able to say something to afford these people some consolation and do something to stop the wicked wagging of tongues, which has hurt so many over the last few months and has dictated the attitude of some people living in the area to the U.D.R.
On 4th January, 1969, the People's Democracy march from Belfast to Londonderry reached the unfortunately now notorious little glen of Burntollet. There is no need for me to describe the shameful affray which took place there. Suffice it to say that, however provocative the march, the subsequent behaviour of those involved in the fighting cannot be excused. Since then, vengeance has been wreaked in a particular way upon the innocent.
On that day, a Saturday morning, Mr. Nicholl had got up somewhat late, and had planned a visit to his brother-in-law who was building a new bungalow across the border at Raphoe in County Donegal. He got in his car and took his normal route, which would have taken him past Burntollet. It may be noted that he was accompanied by his wife, a circumstance which even those who might allege he took part in the affray in the glen would admit was an unusual way of preparing for battle. He took no part in it.
I have here a letter—it is not necessary to read all of it—from a newspaper reporter who was covering that march. In this letter—which I will make available to the Minister should he wish to see it—he clearly proves that Mr. Nicholl could not have taken any part in that affray. He ends by saying:
 I declare this to be the truth, and I am prepared and willing to go before any properly


constituted court or tribunal to evidence under oath.
It is signed by him.
I have with me, and will, if necessary, read, letters from two respected clergymen in the district, from a former rural district councillor, from a civil servant who lives nearby, from the principal of a local school and from a justice of the peace—every one testifying to the good character of this man and his high integrity.
But in the aftermath of recrimination which followed Burntollet many innocent people have suffered from the sins of others, some in a particular way. A formidable number of people from that area who applied to join the Ulster Defence Regiment, Nicholl among them, have been turned down. Of course I recognise that the Army has a perfect right, and that it is normal practice, to turn down men without giving reasons, and this is so in normal circumstances. I would not in the normal way raise such a case in the House, but in this case, because of a certain notorious incident in the area, rejection for the U.D.R. has, alas, become almost synonymous with the belief that the rejected were involved in the incident at Burntollet, and many have suffered in their private lives—ostracism by their friends, disruptions of relations in particular with those belonging to another faith. In extreme cases. the slander has affected their jobs and careers.
I find this intolerable, particularly because there appears to be no means of redress for these people. One man has even said to, " I would rather that it was believed that I had been refused admission to the U.D.R. because I had been convicted on some criminal charge than that anyone should think that I had taken part in such an occurrence."
There is a widespread belief that certain ill-disposed persons, one of them prominent in the community, sent to the Ministry of Defence and elsewhere lists of persons whom these sources would like to believe were involved in Burntollet. I would very much like the Minister to tell us—I appreciate the delicate situation here—that this is not true or that if such information was tendered, it has in no way influenced the decision

of whether to admit men or not. I might be able to tell him plenty about the validity of such sources but I do not want to add to any of the bitterness which has already been created.
In Mr. Nicholl's case two facts could have led to the " information " being laid against him. One is his friendship with the Rev. John Brown, an officer of the U.S.C. since 1955, against whom smears have already been delivered in this House. I want to say something about this aspect as it is connected with the case of Mr. Nicholl.
It is probably well known in County Londonderry that I have certain acute political differences sometimes with Mr. Brown, but I am certain that he was not involved in this or any other incident of such a kind. Indeed at one moment later during that march he arrived in time to save a youthful supporter of the marchers from attack by some of the spectators. He, too, was refused admission to the regiment, and at some time the Minister will perhaps be able to answer the serious allegation that information concerning his rejection reached the Press within an hour of his own notification. Since some sort of reason has been given to him as to why he was rejected—which is unusual—he is entitled to have it spelt out as to why he was rejected, particularly as it may affect Mr. Nicholl's case.
There was another reason which may have been put forward as to why Mr. Nicholl was pilloried. This is that it was alleged at one time that the battle of Burntollet was planned at a meeting at Killalor. Meetings which Mr. Nicholl attends at Killalor take place at regular intervals, but I understand that on the occasion about which the allegation was made there was not, because of bad weather, even a quorum present to perform the functions for which the meeting was called—and that was certainly not to plan the battle of Burntollet.
A local clergyman, a man well known for his liberal views, writes in a letter which I have here that the allegations about this were simply not true, adding that
 Certain individuals made these allegations in the hope that it would cause sectarian strife


and further their own particular aims on the principle that the end justifies the means.
As I have said, I fully respect the right of the Ministry of Defence to turn down applicants without giving reasons but it is obvious that in the case of Mr. Nicholl and Mr. Brown and many others there are special circumstances and that an injustice has been perpetuated which has brought a considerable burden of misery to their lives. I want to put on record my conviction that neither of these men was involved in the Burntollet incident and also that many others have also in all probability—indeed, certainly —been traduced. There is abundant evidence that these two gentlemen could not have been involved. I appreciate the difficulties I am putting the Minister in on behalf of my constituents, but I want him to show some sympathy with this problem and try to find some words which will bring a little comfort to some of the innocent men who have suffered, through no fault of their own, a grievous wrong.

10.54 p.m.

The Minister of Defence for Administration (Mr. Roy Hattersley): It is, of course, the privilege of the hon. Member for Londonderry (Mr. Chichester-Clark) within the rules of order to raise whatever matter he chooses on the Adjournment, but I must reply to his speech in a way that I fear he may regard as at best oblique. I want to make it clear at the outset that I understand that privilege perfectly well and also the obligation he undertakes to represent the interests of his constituents.
But, having said that, I must say that I fear that the request the hon. Member made to me at the end of his speech is not one which I could answer in the terms he suggests. I know very well that he has couched his speech in terms concerned with the public reputation and social standing, and, therefore, the welfare and well-being of the man involved, but what he is really asking for is comment by me on an individual decision by the Army, a decision to reject a specific applicant from membership of the Ulster Defence Regiment. I must make it clear that an individual application and the applicant's success or failure

as a result of that application are not something which I could properly discuss in the House. I cannot give the reason for his rejection. Nor can I eliminate the possible causes of his rejection.
To discuss the reasons for acceptance or rejection in any unit of the Armed Forces is not our practice. To change that practice would not be in the interests of the Army, and in many instances it would not be in the interests of the men involved. With respect to the hon. Gentleman, I must tell him that in present circumstances I do not believe that it would be in the interests of Northern Ireland to discuss the merits or demerits of men who have not been accepted for membership of the Ulster Defence Regiment.
The hon. Gentleman has raised, as he is entitled to do, what seemed to him to be an exception to that general rule, acknowledging that it was our practice never to divulge the reasons why a man might be rejected for this regiment or from any other unit. He mentioned Mr. Brown, who is not the subject of tonight's Adjournment debate but whose case is related to it.
Mr. Brown had been told by the headquarters in Northern Ireland why he was not acceptable as a member of the Ulster Defence Regiment. He is one of two clergymen who applied for membership of the regiment. Both were told, as I am assured is the normal practice in the Services, that we do not normally recruit clergymen of any denomination for combatant duties. That is our general rule, and they were, therefore, told of that general prohibition.
It is my judgment, therefore, that they do not come within this general rule, which excludes us, I believe properly, from discussing individual rejections or acceptances. The merits of this rule seem even stronger in the case of the Ulster Defence Regiment because the regiment is a force which hon. Members on both sides of the House agree must be insulated from political and sectarian influences.
I remind the House of what my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for the Army said in Committee on the Ulster Defence Regiment Bill—

Mr. Chichester-Clark: While I do not expect an immediate answer, may I ask what the situation would be if a minister without a congregation—or, a minister who decided to give up the cloth and resign—applied for membership of the Ulster Defence Regiment? Would he then be acceptable?

Mr. Hattersley: I have considered exactly that situation this afternoon, and I hope that my answer is more than tautology.
If a minister ceases to be a minster, he can apply for membership of the regiment in his non-ministerial capacity. He would then be subject to the same processes of rejection or acceptance as any other non-minister. In other words, if a minister—I use the word in the religious rather than in the governmental sense—abandons the cloth, he is considered in the same way as an ordinary member of the public is considered. There is nothing to prevent an ex-minister from making such an application.
My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for the Army said in Committee on the Ulster Defence Regiment Bill, in stating our objective in these procedures, that it
 is to establish that an applicant is of good character, is not an active supporter of any organisation at one or other extreme of the political spectrum and is likely to act in the best interests of the people of Northern Ireland as a whole ".—[OFICIAL REPORT, 1st December, 1969; Vol. 792, c. 1086.]
It would be tragic were the ultimate decisions on acceptances or rejections into the regiment to be taken in this House. It cannot be a matter for a debate, which is based on information supplied by my Ministry or by me. It is, in fact, properly a part of a professional process which the Army has organised for many years and which it is organising in basically the normal way for the Ulster Defence Regiment in Northern Ireland.
What do I mean by the normal processes? This brings me to the theory of acceptance or rejection. Like all good theories, it is also the practice of acceptance or rejection. But I have described it in these terms of theory to make it very clear that what I have to say about the general procedures does not necessarily apply to the man whose

name appears on the Order Paper tonight.
Applicants may be rejected for any of a number of reasons. Some may be rejected on grounds of age. Some are rejected because of their medical history. Some men have been rejected because they have a criminal record, and, as we made clear in the U.D.R. White Paper, the regiment is open for membership to men of good character.
We also reject those upon whom we do not feel we can rely to discharge their general obligations as members of the regiment—the obligations outlined by my hon. Friend. That is sometimes a difficult judgment to make. It is certainly a judgment which is bound on occasion to give rise to criticism. The reply to that criticism must be that our judgment is based on the professional processes run by the Army rather than on any political debate in this House or on any political pressure.
The assessment of applicants' suitability to join the Ulster Defence Regiment is based on all the information available to Headquarters Northern Ireland, including reports on interviews with the character referees—the referees supplied to the Army by the U.D.R. applicants themselves. Occasionally a man is excluded before his reference is taken up—excluded, that is, on some of the grounds that I have already given, such as age or health. But normally at least one referee is consulted. This is always the case before a man is accepted, and the reference system is the basis of our vetting procedure.
The interviews with the referees are carried out by the experienced staff of the Army Security Vetting Unit, working in Northern Ireland. Where the pressure for quick but thorough interviews has been very great they have been assisted by a number of specially selected regular officers. As the House will expect, Headquarters Northern Ireland does not rely on these sources of information alone. It is its duty to make an assessment on all information available to it. That, of course, Headquarters Northern Ireland does.
Since the hon. Gentleman has raised what he clearly regards as an inappropriate source of information—I mean the


lists of which we have heard before—I would make one point about the lists very clear. Of course in a situation as tense as that in Northern Ireland there are many people who write accusing members or prospective members of the U.D.R. of some crime or some activity which it is suggested makes their membership of the regiment inappropriate. There have been many lists and many letters. They have come from many different sources, certainly sources on both sides of the political spectrum. Indeed, we occasionally get such letters from Members of Parliament. Our practice with all such letters and lists is the same. The fact that some person, no matter how respected, or some organisation, no matter how responsible, may have made an accusation against a prospective member does not in itself exclude him. Men about whom such accusations have been made are subject to the vetting procedure, and our decision as to acceptance or rejection is arrived at after taking all factors, both favourable and unfavourable, into account.
I have said that the vetting process includes as one of its basic processes the interview of referees. It is absolutely essential that we respect the referees' confidence. In no case could I possibly divulge, even by suggestion or implication, the content of a reference. The hon. Gentleman and the House must not conclude from that that I am making any comment on Mr. Nicholl's references. I am not saying that they were good and I am not saying that they were bad. They must conclude nothing whatsoever about the references from my general insistence that no hint can be given as to a reference's content. The whole purport of my speech is to make it absolutely clear that on this individual case, as on other individual cases, there is no information about the references and referees which I can properly give to the House.
One thing I must make absolutely clear, and again the House must not believe that I have referred directly to Mr. Nicholl. We have over the last three months operated vetting procedures on over 5,000 applicants. It was essential that we did them quickly as well as thoroughly. It is inconceivable that

out of those 5,000 there have not been occasions when we have been overcautious. But my instructions to the Army, and I am sure that they are instructions which the House would endorse, were that in the special circumstances of Northern Ireland if doubt there had to be, we should err on the side of caution.
It is because of that proper caution that I must emphasise that the processes of examining an applicant is not a trial. It should not be and it cannot be. Its simple intention—and I can do no better than quote my hon. Friend again—is
to establish that an applicant is of good character, is not an active supporter of any organisation at one or other extreme of the political spectrum and is likely to act in the best interests of the people of Northern Ireland as a whole.
No man has a prescriptive right to membership of this or any other regiment of the British Army. The exclusion of an individual on any grounds is not to be, and should not be, taken as an indictment of his character or his loyalty. It should be taken as the Army operating with proper caution in what is, by any standards, a delicate situation.
It is the very delicacy of this situation which makes me so regret that the hon. Gentleman has thought it necessary to debate this individual case tonight. I know that he is motivated by proper concern for his constituent, but I suspect that he shares with me the fear that the House having debated this case —if "debate" is the right word to describe what has happened, in view of the absence of information from this Dispatch Box tonight in reply to the hon. Gentleman—it will be followed by many other hon. Members raising the claims of many other people who have been rejected from membership of the regiment. Complaints about rejections might well be followed by complaints about acceptances.
I echo the hon. Gentleman's words. Nothing could be worse than to have the membership of the regiment the subject of continual political controversy. Of course there have been rejections—on grounds of health, on grounds of general unsuitability, and on grounds of age. Of course there have been cases when individuals who are well known to


hon. Members have been rejected, although the hon. Members who know them are surprised at their rejection. If we were to debate such exclusions we should not be doing the best service to the regiment or to its general political objectivity or, indeed, its insulation from politics, which must be a feature of it in the years ahead. To debate the regiment in those terms would undermine the confidence of the regiment. Indeed, it would do more and it would do worse. It might well undermine the confidence of the people of Northern Ireland in the regiment. That would be the case if hon. Members were continually questioning exclusions and if we then went to the inevitable next step and there were continual questionings of inclusions.
I back without hesitation or qualification the objectivity and integrity of our acceptance procedures in the Army and of the men who operate those procedures. If we want, as I am sure we all do, the regiment to be accepted as part of the Army, with all the standards of detachment and objectivity which characterise the Army's every action and of which the Army has traditionally been so proud, it must be allowed to conduct its day-to-day affairs free from the pressure of politics. Clearly, from time to time the pressure of politics will appear. Clearly, from time to time in a situation as tense and as delicate as that in Northern Ireland we shall all be

tempted to make political points about the composition, success and operations of the regiment.
We owe to the regiment and to Northern Ireland a self-denying ordinance. I am prepared to swear that I will not say in future that I was right about the proportion of Catholics who would join. Perhaps all of us should equally swear that we understand the importance of keeping the regiment what it is and what it must be—a special but nevertheless in many ways typical regiment of the British Army doing a crucially important job and doing it rather better when it is allowed to get on with its job insulated from the day-to-day pressures of political activity.

Mr. Chichester-Clark: The hon. Member will be well aware that I share his sentiments and would not have raised these cases in the House had they not already been raised in Parliament, either in Northern Ireland or here, and had not these individuals already been traduced. I simply could not, nor could any hon. Member, leave any stone unturned to try to clear their names, and that is what I have done tonight.
I am grateful to the Minister that in his delicate position he has done what he can, although I cannot pretend that it is entirely satisfactory.

Question put and agreed to

Adjourned accordingly at eleven minutes past Eleven o'clock